Denial of Inheritance and Fake Compromise Exposed – PLJ 2021 SC 161 Explained.
وراثت سے انکار، جعلی صلح نامہ، اور بینامی ملکیت کا جھوٹا دعویٰ – سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ: PLJ 2021 SC 161
تمہید:
پاکستانی معاشرے میں خواتین کو ان کے شرعی وراثتی حقوق سے محروم رکھنا ایک عام مگر انتہائی افسوسناک چلن ہے۔ سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے اپنے ایک حالیہ فیصلے میں نہ صرف اس غیرقانونی عمل کی نشاندہی کی بلکہ سخت قانونی مؤقف بھی اختیار کیا۔ زیرِ نظر مقدمہ "مرزا عابد بیگ بنام زاہد صابر" اسی نوعیت کا تھا، جس میں بیٹیوں کو ان کے والد کی وراثت سے محروم کرنے کی دانستہ کوشش کی گئی۔
پس منظر:
مرزا سلطان بیگ کا انتقال ہوا تو ان کی جائیداد (ایک مکان اور دکان) ان کے تمام شرعی ورثاء میں تقسیم ہونی چاہیے تھی۔ مگر ان کے بیٹے مرزا عابد بیگ نے اپنی بہنوں کو نہ صرف وراثت سے محروم رکھا بلکہ ان کی حیثیتِ وراثتی کو بھی جھٹلایا۔
عدالتی کارروائی کا خلاصہ:
1. ابتدائی مقدمہ:
دو بیٹیوں نے سول جج لاہور کی عدالت میں وراثتی حقوق کے لیے دعویٰ دائر کیا۔ عدالت نے دعویٰ منظور کرتے ہوئے صرف دو جائیدادوں (مکان اور دکان) کے بارے میں فیصلہ دیا۔
2. اپیل، نظرِ ثانی، اور جعلی صلح نامہ:
مرزا عابد بیگ نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل، پھر نظرِ ثانی، اور اس دوران ایک جعلی "صلح نامہ" داخل کرنے کی کوشش کی، جس کی حقیقت بعد میں کھل کر سامنے آئی۔ اس معاہدے میں نہ رقم کا درست ذکر تھا، نہ اصل دستخط یا انگوٹھا۔
3. سپریم کورٹ کی مداخلت:
بالآخر سپریم کورٹ نے اس تمام طرزِ عمل کو بدنیتی پر مبنی قرار دیتے ہوئے واضح کیا کہ مرزا عابد بیگ نے جعلی معاہدات اور تاخیری حربے استعمال کر کے اپنی بہنوں کو چالیس سال سے زائد عرصے تک وراثت سے محروم رکھا۔
اہم قانونی نکات:
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا:
1. کہ مرزا سلطان بیگ کی جائیداد ان کے تمام شرعی وارثوں میں تقسیم ہونی چاہیے تھی، لیکن ایسا جان بوجھ کر نہیں کیا گیا۔
2. کہ جعلی معاہدات اور صلح نامے، جن کی بنیاد پر وراثتی حق چھینا جائے، قانونِ قرارداد 1872 کی دفعہ 25 کے تحت باطل اور ناقابلِ نفاذ ہوتے ہیں۔
3. کہ اگر کسی شخص پر جعلسازی کا الزام ہو اور وہ اس کے خلاف شواہد مہیا نہ کرے (جیسے فنگر پرنٹ رپورٹ)، تو عدالت منفی نتیجہ (adverse presumption) نکال سکتی ہے۔
4. کہ بہنوں کو چالیس سال سے زائد عرصہ وراثت سے محروم رکھنا غیر قانونی، غیر اخلاقی اور شرعی اصولوں کی خلاف ورزی ہے۔
5. کہ مرزا عابد بیگ کے تمام حربے صرف تاخیر، دھوکہ دہی، اور جائیداد پر ناجائز قبضہ برقرار رکھنے کے لیے تھے۔
نتیجہ:
سپریم کورٹ کے اس فیصلے سے نہ صرف وراثت کے معاملات میں شفافیت اور انصاف کو فروغ ملا ہے، بلکہ خواتین کے وراثتی حقوق کو آئینی و شرعی تحفظ بھی فراہم کیا گیا ہے۔ یہ فیصلہ ان تمام خواتین کے لیے امید کی کرن ہے جو آج بھی وراثت کے حق سے محروم ہیں۔
حوالہ:
PLJ 2021 SC 161 – Mirza Abid Baig vs. Zahid Sabir (deceased) through LRs
فیصلہ تحریر فرمایا: جسٹس قاضی فائز عیسیٰ
تاریخِ فیصلہ: 12 فروری 2020
Must read Judgement
Mirza ABID BAIG V. ZAHID SABIR (Qazi Faez Isa, J.).
SC 161
PLJ 2021 SC 161 [Appellate Jurisdiction]
Present: QAZI FAEZ ISA AND SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JJ
Mirza ABID BAIG--Appellant
versus
ZAHID SABIR (DECEASED) through LRs and others-Respondents
C.A. No. 472 of 2013, decided on 12.2.2020.
On appeal against the judgment dated 6.02.2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No. 489/2009)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
S. 12(2) & O.XLI R. 270, O.XXX R. 1--Suit for rendation of account--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Revision petition--Application for compromise during pendency of revision petition--Revision petition disposed of--Application for set aside decree-Recalling of order of disposed revision petition--Remanded to appellate Court--Recording of evidence--Application u/S. 12(2) was accepted and revision petition was revived--Benami owner--Deprivation of inheritence--Entitlement to inheritation--Non-execution of compromise agreement--Burden to prove--Challenge to--Mirza Sultan Baig died when he died his properties came to vest in his legal heirs and should have been distributed among them in accordance with shariah but this was not done compelling two of his daughters to file a suit to get what was due to them--Mirza Abid Baig stooped to denying that his sisters were legal heirs of Mirza Sultan Baig--He also, without any proof, claimed that his father was not legal owner of said house and shop, insinuating but without stating, let alone stablishing that he was their real owner and that his father was dibenami (ostensible) owner-Civil Judge, Lahore decreed suit in respect of only two of properties, that is said house and shop, but this too was not acceptable to Mirza Abid Baig who continued to throw one unnecessary challenge after another to prevent his the sisters from getting their inheritance and regrettably succeeded by such tactics as Zahida Sabir passed away and it is now forty-five years since she and then her children have remained deprived of inheritance--Such conduct of appellant contravened law and also left behind as per their predetermined shares-It is unbelievable immediately on death of their predecessor become owners of estate that counsel would have kept silent and let Judge decide case on merits when Zahida Sabir had already withdrawn her claim against
162 SC
Mirza ABID BAIG V. ZAHID SABIR (Qazi Faez Isa, J.)
بان
2021
her brother--It is thus quite clear to us that Mirza Abid Baig staged whole thing; purported compromise application was neitt executed nor filed and purported agreement was not execute 1975 leaving b Purported agreement but is brought forward after fifteen years his hand an amount of "700,000/-" which he said was paid in the condition of ac was to be written--Mirza Abid Baig testified that he had inserte Abida Azam, 2 Purported agreement left blank place where consideration at Mirza Abid Ba but failed to establish particular fact of payment having been madahida Sabir to Zahida Sabir--Mirza Abid Baig further destroyed his credibility Tariq. A suit f by preposterously alleging that his sister was not entitled to inher the properties from her father's estate--He further stated that amount paid their shares the him to her was not in settlement of her inheritance, which the raised question why was payment made, but no answer wa properties, tha forthcoming--Purported compromise application dated 20 Octobe Garden Block, but Appellate Court decided case on merits it is therefore clear, tha kanals and a s it did not exist on Court record because Judge would not have spe house and she time to decide a case on merits which had already be judgment and d compromised--Signature of Zahida Sabir on both these documents and two sisters. was also different from her signature on plaint and other admitted documents--Both these documents were also thumb-impressed her thumb impression thereon by sending them for forensis Azam (Plaintiff her therefore it was relatively easy to establish if she had affixes during its pende examination but Mirza Abid Baig did not elect to do so and thus as four hundred th adverse presumption can be drawn against him.
ontract Act 1872 (IX of 1872)--
[Pp. 166, 167 & 168] A, B, C, D &E
have been executed on payment of compensation of seven hundre S. 25--Payment of compensation--Void documents--Purportet compromise application and purported agreement were stated thousand rupees but Mirza Abid Baig failed to establish that such payment was made, therefore, these documents were void in term of Section 25 of Contract Act, 1872--Appeal was dismissed.
was disposed of c
Fakhira Tariq fi Judge of the Hig Civil Procedure application filed petition and ren evidence to verif Appellate C behalf of their c consid
P. 168
Mr. Muhammad Atif Amin, Advocate Supreme Court and M Khattak AOR for Appellant