MUHAMMAD YAQOOB (deceased) vs SAEEDA BIBI (deceased) Ss — 2025 SCMR 1698 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB (deceased) VS SAEEDA BIBI (deceased) Ss. 3 & 5---Islamic law---Inheritance---Share in the legacy of deceased who left behind a widow (defendant No.1) and a daughter (plaintiff)---Property received by widow from inheritance of her deceased husband as limited owner---Limited owner status, termination of---Effect---After termination of status as limited owner the property occupied by Muslim female would be considered as a property of last male owner and same would revert back to his legal heirs and any sale made by her would be effective only to the extent of her own share---Facts in brevity were that the respondent No.1/plaintiff, daughter of the deceased filed a suit for declaration seeking her legal share in her deceased father's property---The defendant Nos. 2 to 9, (legal heirs of deceased's brother)disputed her claim alleging she was not his daughter and that deceased died issueless---However, defendant No.4 (stepbrother of respondent No.1/plaintiff) supported her claim through his written statement and oral evidence, confirming her status as deceased's daughter and he also appeared as PW-3 and his testimony remained un-shattered---The Trial Court, appellate court and High Court concurrently accepted respondent No.1's (plaintiff/daughter) claim---The petitioners, legal heirs of defendant No.10, who had purchased the property from widow of deceased (mother of plaintiff/respondent No.1) challenged the concurrent findings through civil revision, which was dismissed---Validity---Held: Defendant No. 10 (predecessor of the petitioners) purchased the share of widow of deceased/mother of plaintiff (the property inherited by her as widow of deceased)---This was the property of mother of respondent No.1/plaintiff's which was received by her from the inheritance of her deceased husband (father of respondent No.1) as limited owner and her status as limited owner was terminated under section 3 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962---After termination of her status as limited owner the property occupied by her was considered as the property of last male owner and in the present case the last male owner was her last husband (father of respondent No.1/plaintiff) and according to the Act of 1962 the property had to be reverted back to his legal heirs---The record established the fact that the plaintiff as daughter of deceased, defendant No.1 as widow and remaining brother of the deceased (as deceased had no male issue) were entitled to inherit the legacy of the deceased predecessor of respondent No.1/plaintiff and this very status of the parties as declared by three courts below had attained finality---The predecessor of the petitioner, defendant No.10, legally stepped into the shoes of defendant No.1/widow of deceased as he purchased the property from her and could ask only for the share which was received by her after promulgation of the Act of 1962 and the rest had to go to the other legal heirs of the deceased predecessor---Hence, the sale made by defendant No. 1 (mother of plaintiff / respondent No. 1 and widow of deceased predecessor) was only effective to the extent of her own share and that it was invalid, void and ineffective to the extent of rights of plaintiff (respondent No.1) and brother of the deceased---Since the actual defendants (respondent Nos. 3-9) accepted the decrees in favour of plaintiff (respondent No.1) the status of defendant No.1 (predecessor of the petitioners) was simply that of a purchaser who legally could not challenge / question the legal and sharia status of respondent No.1/plaintiff or the other respondents---The petitioners for that matter had no locus standi and cause of action to challenge the same---Present petition, petitioners' appeal before the District Court and civil revision before the High Court were not maintainable---Concurrent findings of facts recorded by three courts could not be questions in absence of any misreading or non-reading of material evidence or any other material irregularity or illegality---Present petition being meritless was dismissed and leave was refused, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB (deceased) vs SAEEDA BIBI (deceased) Ss — 2025 SCMR 1698 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR