Mst. SHAHJAHAN LASHARI vs Mst — 2026 CLC 463 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Mst. SHAHJAHAN LASHARI VS Mst. FARAH LASHARI S. 54---agreement to sell---Creation of title---Scope---agreement to sell does not create any title over the property; it does not confer ownership of the land---Person in whose favour such an agreement is executed cannot claim a decree of title and even if the agreement includes an acknowledgment of receipt of earnest money or partial payment, it merely grants a right to seek execution of another document, the sale deed, until the same is duly executed and registered and the title formally transferred. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 463 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. SHAHJAHAN LASHARI VS Mst. FARAH LASHARI Inheritance---Execution of an agreement to sell by co-sharers---Right of deprived female/daughters---Scope---Right of inheritance of vulnerable members of society, including females, is a fundamental right that must be protected---Islamic law (Shariah) and statutory provisions clearly guarantee inheritance rights and any attempt to deprive legal heirs of what is rightfully theirs must be viewed with strict scrutiny---Regrettably, a disturbing practice has developed where parties, in defiance of Shariah and the law, resort to nefarious and frivolous pleas to deprive rightful heirs of their shares, which calls for the Courts to vigilantly safeguard the inheritance rights of women and other vulnerable heirs. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 463 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. SHAHJAHAN LASHARI VS Mst. FARAH LASHARI S. 54---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 8, 42 & 54---Suit for declaration, partition, possession and permanent injunction---Inheritance---Share of daughter, denial of---Plea of execution of an agreement to sell and receiving of share in inheritance---Failure to seek specific performance of agreement to sell within time---absence of mutation and non-registration of sale---Contradictory evidence---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights---Once the claim was denied by a co-owner, the applicants were under a legal obligation to approach the competent court and assert their claim against respondent/plaintiff, and their failure to do so raised serious questions about the credibility and maintainability of their stance---Such inaction reflected gross negligence and demonstrated a lack of bona fide intent, especially in matters relating to partition of joint property and enforcement of alleged sale agreements---Benefit of any equitable relief cannot be extended to those who have failed to act within the legal framework and prescribed time limits---If a valid and lawful sale had truly occurred, it would have been duly reflected in the revenue record and appropriate legal formalities such as registration of the sale deed and mutation would have been completed---absence of these essential steps undermined the credibility of their claim---Mere attestation of agreement to sell does not establish the valid execution or consent of all co-sharers, especially in the absence of independent and consistent corroborative evidence---Overall evidence presented by the applicants lacked coherence, consistency and legal reliability---Contradiction between the statements of key witnesses cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the agreement to sell and reflected an attempt to create a false narrative---Mere production of a document could not affect the rightful claim of the respondent, whose existence as a legal heir was undisputed---Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mst. SHAHJAHAN LASHARI vs Mst — 2026 CLC 463 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC