Tamleek Mutation Declared Void – Protection of Female Inheritance Rights | 2025 C.R. 77-D Judgment
🏛️ خواتین کو وراثت سے محروم کرنے کے خلاف ہائیکورٹ کا فیصلہ
پس منظر:
وراثت ایک شرعی اور قانونی حق ہے، جو ہر مسلمان کو اپنے والدین کی جائیداد میں وفات کے بعد از خود ملتا ہے۔ تاہم، ہمارے معاشرے میں خواتین کو ان کے وراثتی حقوق سے محروم کرنے کی کوششیں اکثر جعلی تملیک ناموں (ھبہ) اور ریونیو ریکارڈ میں رد و بدل کے ذریعے کی جاتی ہیں۔ لاہور ہائیکورٹ کے حالیہ فیصلے C.R.No.77-D of 2011 نے ایک ایسے ہی معاملے میں نہایت اہم اور قابلِ تقلید رہنمائی فراہم کی ہے۔
مقدمے کا خلاصہ:
مدعیہ مسٹرس راشیدن نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ اُس کے والد اشرف علی فالج کے مریض تھے اور کسی قسم کا بیان دینے یا زمین منتقل کرنے کے قابل نہ تھے، مگر مدعا علیہ عبدالستار نے ملی بھگت سے جعلی تملیک نامہ اور ریونیو ریکارڈ میں تبدیلی کرا کر زمین اپنے نام کروائی، جس کا مقصد بیٹیوں کو وراثت سے محروم کرنا تھا۔
ابتدائی عدالت نے راشیدن کا دعویٰ منظور کرتے ہوئے تملیک نامہ کالعدم قرار دیا، تاہم اپیلٹ کورٹ نے فیصلہ بدل دیا۔ جس پر راشیدن نے لاہور ہائیکورٹ، ملتان بنچ سے رجوع کیا۔
عدالت عالیہ کے اہم مشاہدات:
🔹 1. تملیک کے بنیادی عناصر ثابت نہ ہو سکے:
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ کسی بھی ھبہ (Gift) کو درست تسلیم کرنے کے لیے تین باتوں کا ثبوت دینا ضروری ہے:
اعلانِ ھبہ (Offer)
قبولیت (Acceptance)
قبضے کی منتقلی (Delivery of Possession)
> اس مقدمے میں یہ تینوں بنیادی اجزاء غیرموجود تھے۔
🔹 2. خواتین کو وراثت سے محروم کرنا شرعی و قانونی طور پر ناجائز:
عدالت نے سپریم کورٹ کے حالیہ فیصلے (2025 SCMR 88) کا حوالہ دیا، جس میں کہا گیا کہ خواتین کو جعلی ھبہ ناموں سے وراثت سے محروم کرنا ایک غلط روایت ہے، جسے ختم کیا جانا چاہیے۔
🔹 3. دھوکہ دہی کی صورت میں مدتِ معیاد (Limitation) کا آغاز "علم" سے ہو گا:
عدالت نے (2015 SCMR 1704) کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے کہا کہ اگر کسی معاملے میں دھوکہ دہی ہو تو مقدمہ دائر کرنے کی مدت کا آغاز اس وقت سے ہوتا ہے جب متاثرہ فریق کو فراڈ کا علم ہوتا ہے۔
🔹 4. اپیلٹ کورٹ کا فیصلہ تضادات پر مبنی تھا:
اپیلٹ کورٹ نے ایک جگہ تملیک کو مشکوک کہا اور دوسری جگہ اُسے درست مانا، جو عدالتی اصولوں کے خلاف ہے۔
حتمی فیصلہ:
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے اپیلٹ کورٹ کا فیصلہ کالعدم قرار دے کر ابتدائی عدالت کا فیصلہ مکمل طور پر بحال کر دیا اور تملیک نامے کو باطل اور غیر مؤثر قرار دیا۔
🔍 قانونی اہمیت:
یہ فیصلہ ان تمام مقدمات میں رہنمائی فراہم کرتا ہے جہاں:
خواتین کو وراثت سے محروم کیا گیا ہو،
تملیک یا ھبہ کے ذریعے قانونی حقوق سلب کیے جا رہے ہوں،
ریونیو ریکارڈ میں جعل سازی کی گئی ہو۔
🔖 حوالہ جات:
C.R.No.77-D of 2011
2025 SCMR 88
2015 SCMR 1704
2025 SCMR 374 (عدالتی صوابدید کے اصول)
Must read judgement
R.No.77-D of 2011 8
oath, thereby discharging the initial burden. It was then for the donee to
prove the genuineness of the Tamleek, which he failed to do.
18. A comparative and reasoned examination of both the judgments
shows that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is in
accordance with law, fully supported by the evidence, and free from any
legal infirmity or procedural irregularity. The trial court rightly held that
the alleged Tamleek mutation was a device to deprive the legal heirs of
their rightful inheritance and declared the transaction void. The appellate
court erred in reversing these findings without any valid legal
justification.
19. In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that the impugned
judgment and decree dated 04.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Multan, suffer from serious legal flaws and is hereby set
aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2009 passed by
the trial court is restored in its entirety.
20. This civil revision is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Malik Javid Iqbal Wains)
Judge
Approved For Reporting
Judge
Announced in Open Court on ___.07.2025
Judge
C.R.No.77-D of 2011 7
fraudulent statements with the facilitation of Revenue department
officials and some advocates. The courts too at times are not
vigilant enough to protect inheritance rights, particularly of
females and other vulnerable members of society. And, simple
cases such as this one are not expeditiously decided, and when
they do get decided the decision is assailed. The practice of
depriving females of their inheritance must be put a stop to, and
those who do so must be made to pay substantial costs and not be
permitted to benefit from procedural technicalities.”
16. Now comes to the point of limitation. The trial court rightly held
while deciding the issue No.9 that the suit was within time, as the
petitioner gained knowledge of the fraudulent Tamleek after the death of
her father Ashraf Ali, which finding was upheld by the appellate court. It
is a settled principle that when fraud is alleged, limitation begins to run
from the date of knowledge. Reliance is placed on “Baja through L.Rs.
and others v. Mst. Bakhan and others” (2015 SCMR 1704). Thus, the
respondents’ argument that the suit is barred by limitation is wholly
without any merit, particularly when he neither raised the question of
limitation in his written statement nor assailed the concurrent findings of
both the courts below on this point, which categorically held that the suit
was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. It is a settled principle
of law that when finding on a material issue has attained finality and has
not been specifically challenged in revision, the same cannot be reopened
indirectly by raising arguments that run contrary to that finding. The
unchallenged concurrent findings on limitation cannot be disturbed at a
subsequent stage, the petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that she
acquired knowledge of the impugned mutation after the demise of the
donor. Therefore, the plea of limitation is misconceived and deserves
outright rejection.
17. As regards the respondents’ contention that the petitioner failed to
plead particulars of fraud as required under Order VI Rule 4 CPC, this
argument is misconceived. The record shows that the petitioner pleaded
specific facts regarding fraud, collusion with the revenue staff, the
physical incapacity of the donor, and forged thumb impressions. The
petitioner/plaintiff also appeared as PW-1 and reaffirmed these facts on
C.R.No.77-D of 2011 6
possession. The impugned mutation No.1874 dated 28.06.1987 was
attested more than a month later of entering the said Rapat Roznamcha
and failed to disclose when or where the Tamleek was made or accepted.
There is not a single independent witness of these essential acts, nor any
corroborative material was placed on the record to prove physical delivery
of possession. These material lacunas fatally undermine the validity of the
alleged Tamleek.
14. The law is settled that immovable property can be gifted orally, but
the donee must establish three ingredients beyond doubt, (i) declaration of
gift by the donor, (ii) acceptance by the donee and (iii) delivery of
possession. The trial court has rightly relied upon the judgment rendered
by this Court, reported as “Raja Muhammad Yasin vs. Zaitoon Begum and
others” (1993 CLC 2448), wherein it was held that a gift transaction,
particularly one aimed at excluding legal heirs, must be proved with strict
compliance of the legal requirements and any deviation renders the gift
void. In the present case, all three essential ingredients are lacking in
evidence, and the surrounding circumstances strongly suggest that the
alleged Tamleek was nothing more than a colourable device to deprive
lawful heirs of their inheritance. Furthermore, the apex Court has
consistently held that where a transaction of gift results in disinheritance
of legal heirs, the burden to prove the gift with strict and satisfactory
evidence lies heavily on the done, which in the present case, has not
discharged.
15.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a recent authoritative
pronouncement reported as “Mst. Aksar Jan and others v. Mst. Shamim
Akhtar and others” (2025 SCMR 88) has strongly deprecated the practice
of depriving female legal heirs of their rightful inheritance through
fabricated gift mutations and dubious documents. The relevant extract of
the judgment is hereby reproduced hereinafter: -
“5.
The inheritance shares in the estate left by a Muslim is
stipulated in the Holy Qur’an and a deceased’s legal heirs
become owners on his/her death. Unfortunately, and all too often,
females continue to be deprived of their inheritance by
employing various nefarious tactics, bogus documentation,
R.No.77-D of 2011 5
and delivery of possession allegedly took place. These fundamental
omissions not only cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the alleged
Tamleek but also render the claim of the donee legally unsustainable.
11. The appellate court, while reversing the finding on issue No.2, did
not assign sound or cogent reasons to disregard the well-founded findings
of the trial court. Minor inconsistencies in the petitioner’s evidence do not
outweigh the failure of the defendant to prove the core ingredients of a
valid gift. The appellate court, while reversing the finding, overlooked
settled legal principles and misapplied its jurisdiction.
12. It is also noted that defendants No.2 and 3, who are the real sisters
of the petitioner and defendant No.1, were proceeded against ex-parte
during the proceedings before the trial court and were never produced as
defence witnesses to support the stance of respondent/defendant No.1
(Abdul Sattar). Further said Abdul Sattar appeared in the witness box as
DW-1 and deposed that 33 Biggas and few Marla of land were gifted to
him by his father through the impugned Tamleek mutation on 28.06.1987
and its possession was also delivered. He further claimed that his father
was healthy and had called his daughters three to four months prior to
Tamleek to obtain their consent. However, no written consent or
independent witness of such consent, offer, acceptance, or delivery of
possession was ever produced in evidence. The alleged justification for
disinheriting the real daughters on the ground of love and affection is
seriously questionable. Even if the purported intention behind the
Tamleek was claimed to be pious, it is inconceivable how depriving
daughters of their Shariah-mandated inheritance could be treated as an act
of virtue. The Holy Quran unequivocally guarantees the rights of
daughters in their father’s estate. Any attempt to defeat this divine
commandment through a dubious transaction is not legally sustainable.
13. The documentary evidence relied upon by the defendant in this
regard is equally deficient. The document (Exh.D1) i.e. Rapat Roznamcha
Waqiati, dated 16.05.1987 allegedly records a statement by Ashraf Ali,
but it does not mention the actual offer, acceptance, or delivery of
C.R.No.77-D of 2011 4
subsequent inconsistent observations within the same judgment unless
supported by sound legal grounds and clear reasoning.
9.
In the present case, the appellate court failed to assign any lawful,
convincing, or cogent reasons for departing from its own admitted finding
recorded in paragraph No.9. The contradictory stance adopted in paragraph
No.10 renders the impugned judgment legally unsustainable and a result of
misreading and non-reading of evidence. Such an error is an obvious
miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court in the exercise
of its revisional jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the
case titled “CHAIRMAN PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORIES, POF
BOARD, WAH CANTT vs. AKHTAR TANVEER and others” (2025
SCMR 374), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as
under: -
“8. Judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously and
transparently, based on established principles and sound
reasoning. As Lord Woolf stated, discretion enables the court to
achieve justice on a case-to- case basis while respecting the
framework of legal rules. This balance enhances justice and
will reduce litigation and the overturning of decisions by this
Court, thus increasing predictability and certainty, both of
which are crucial aspects in upholding the rule of law and
maintaining public confidence in the legal system. This
cohesive harmony is not possible if discretion is exercised
arbitrarily, without adhering to settled principles in law as
established by this Court and by ignoring principles of fairness,
equity and adherence to law….”
10. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment and decree reveals that
the appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court primarily on the
ground that Abdul Sattar (defendant) had established his claim of Tamleek
through cogent and convincing evidence; that Ashraf Ali, the predecessorin-interest, did not challenge the said mutation during his lifetime;
Tamleek mutation was sanctioned in 1987, whereas Ashraf Ali passed
away in 1999. Additionally, it was held that Abdul Sattar remained in
possession of the suit property. However, a bare examination of the record
demonstrates that Abdul Sattar, even in his written statement, failed to
disclose the specific date, time, place, or the names of witnesses before
whom the essential ingredients of a valid Tamleek i.e. offer, acceptance
C.R.No.77-D of 2011 3
5.
Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
impugned mutation was validly executed by the predecessor-in-interest of
the parties and was never challenged by the petitioner during the lifetime
of Ashraf Ali. He argues that the essential ingredients of a valid gift, offer,
acceptance, and delivery of possession, were fully established. He further
contends that the disputed mutation was sanctioned in 1987, while the suit
was instituted on 04.06.2002, after an unexplained delay of 15 years.
Therefore, the suit was barred by limitation, a fact which the trial court
failed to consider. Finally, he submits that the petitioner has failed to prove
the alleged fraud and misrepresentation through any cogent and convincing
evidence, and as such, the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate
court does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
6.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
7.
The pivotal question for determination before this Court is whether
the appellate court was justified in reversing the findings of the trial court
on issue No.2, which pertained specifically to mutation No.1874 dated
28.06.1987, resulting in the dismissal of the petitioner’s suit.
8.
It is observed that the appellate court, while rendering the impugned
judgment, had itself, in paragraph No.9, affirmed the finding of the trial
court regarding the invalidity of the alleged gift (tamleek) and specifically
held that the respondent/defendant No.1 failed to discharge the burden of
proving the essential ingredients of a valid gift. However, in stark
contradiction, in paragraph No.10 of the very judgment, the appellate court
has inexplicably reversed the finding of the trial court on issue No.2,
which was based on a correct appraisal of evidence and law. This
contradictory approach is patently untenable in law. It is a settled principle
that once a court has conclusively affirmed a factual finding on a material
issue, particularly relating to the validity of the main transaction, it cannot,
without lawful justification or cogent reasons, render a subsequent finding
that directly negates its own earlier conclusion. Such an approach is
contrary to settled judicial norms and violates the doctrine of consistency
in judicial reasoning. Such findings of fact cannot be contradicted by hu
C.R.No.77-D of 2011 2
the entire proceedings in the revenue record were based on fraud and
therefore liable to be set aside.
3.
The suit was contested by defendant No.1/Abdul Sattar through
filing a written statement. After framing of issues, recording of evidence,
and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the suit instituted by the
petitioner was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2009 by the
trial court. Feeling aggrieved, Abdul Sattar, predecessor-in-interest of the
respondents, preferred an appeal which was accepted vide judgment and
decree dated 04.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Multan, thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court.
Hence, this revision petition.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim of Abdul
Sattar that his father Ashraf Ali (donor) made the impugned Tamleek on
28.06.1987 is contradicted by the copy of roznamcha Ex.D1, wherein it is
recorded that on 16.05.1987 the donor appeared and got a rapat recorded in
the Roznamcha Waqiati. He adds that there is nothing on record to suggest
that the donor declared his intention and that the Tamleek was accepted by
the donee or that, in pursuance of the declaration, possession of the
impugned property was handed over to the respondents. He argues that
mere entries in the revenue record do not create any right or title depriving
the real daughters of their shares in the estate of the deceased. Hence, the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate court is not
sustainable. Learned counsel while referring paragraph Nos.9 & 10 of the
impugned judgment states with vehemence that findings rendered in both
these paragraphs are not only contradictory but also lack judicial
consistency, which under the law is imperative while deciding a lis/appeal.
He further contends that the trial court, having the best opportunity to
assess the demeanor of the witnesses, has rightly decreed the suit of the
petitioner after thoroughly scanning the evidence, considering the material
on record, and appreciating the law on the subject, whereas such wellreasoned findings have erroneously been reversed by the appellate court,
through the impugned judgment, which is liable to be set-aside
Stereo.HCJDA 38.
JUDGMENT SHEET.
LAHORE HIGH COURT,
MULTAN BENCH MULTAN
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
C.R.No.77-D of 2011
Mst. Rasheedan
Vs. Abdul Sattar (deceased)
represented through LRs, etc.
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing:
17.06.2025
Petitioner by:
Mian Anwar Mubeen Ansari, Advocate.
LRs of respondent No.1 by Mr. Muhammad Ali Siddiqui, Advocate.
MALIK JAVID IQBAL WAINS, J. Through the instant civil
revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter “CPC”), the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree
dated 04.11.2010 passed by the appellate court, whereby the appeal
preferred by Abdul Sattar, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, was
allowed and the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2009 passed by the trial
court was set aside, by virtue of which the suit for declaration instituted by
the petitioner seeking cancellation of Tamleek Mutation No.1874 dated
28.06.1987 in favour of Abdul Sattar, was decreed.
2.
Briefly, the facts as discernible from the plaint are that the parties
are successors-in-interest of their father Ashraf Ali (deceased). It was
averred in the plaint that Abdul Sattar, predecessor-in-interest of the
respondents, during the ailment of their deceased father, with mala fide
and collusiveness got attested Tamleek Mutation No.1874 dated
28.06.1987, thereby depriving Mst. Rasheedan (petitioner), Mst. Shakoori,
and Mst. Shakila, daughters of the deceased, of their legal and Islamic
shares. It was further contended in the plaint that their father was suffering
from falij (paralysis) and was not even able to speak, hear, or walk, and
that the report of the Halqa Patwari is suspicious, while the thumb
impression affixed on the rapat roznamcha was also fake and fictitious,
allegedly affixed with the connivance of the revenue field staff. The
petitioner asserted that the deceased never made a valid Tamleek, and that