Daughters’ Inheritance Cannot Be Denied on the Basis of an Unregistered Family Settlement.
 |
| 2026 clc 131. Inheritance of daughters. |
بیٹیوں کے وراثتی حق کو غیر رجسٹرڈ خاندانی تصفیہ سے ختم نہیں کیا جا سکتا
تمہید
کیس کے حقائق
مدعا علیہان کا مؤقف
عدالتوں کا تجزیہ
حتمی فیصلہ
قانونی اہمیت
نتیجہ
Must read judgement.
2026 C L C 131
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others-Petitioners
Versus
Bibi SHAHZADO and others ---Respondents
12
Civil Revision No. 501 of 2024, decided on 11th September, 2025.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-
Ss.42 & 54 Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.52---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Dispute regarding. inheritance and ownership rights among heirs Daughters entitlement to ancestral property-Recognition and enforcement---Defendants relying on purported family settlement---Presumption of correctness as to entries recorded in record-of-rights---Scope---Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, real sisters and daughters of late "S" (one of the three sons of "WM"), filed a suit for declaration, partition, mesne profits, and permanent injunction regarding several ancestral properties left unpartitioned by "WM" They alleged that the petitioners, who were descendants of "S's" brothers "MD" and "B", continued in possession and collected rent from the inherited properties without recognizing their lawful share under Muhammadan Law, and further attempted to sell portions of the estate-Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, which was upheld by the appellate court, leading the petitioners/defendants to file the present civil revision challenging the concurrent findings of both courts below-Held: Admittedly the suit property was recorded in the revenue record in the name of father of respondents lents Nos.1 and 2, therefore therefore, the petitioners bore a heavy burden to dislodge the inheritance claim of respondents Nos. 1 and 2-Agreement purported to have been entered into between parties was not registered which was a fatal defect-Such agreement was not only vague but also suffered from an inherent defect-Petitioners asserted exclusive purchase of the said property by their late father contrary to the revenue record and stance taken by them in 1971-The presumption of corrections attaching to the jamanbandi remained unrebutted; the admission implicit in the 1971 agreement, read with the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, estopped the party from taking a contrary stance-It was an admitted feature of the case that the suit property was joint property and that the sons of late "WM" and subsequently their legal heirs were entitled to receive their due shares in accordance with law-The defence plea regarding the family settlement was thoroughly examined by the fora below and in view of the multiple contradictions was rightly discarded-Further, it was an admitted fact that allegedly family settlement of 1971 found no reflection in the revenue record and the petitioners only advanced a patchwork of new, contradictory defences when mutation entries were lawfully effected in favour of the daughters of late "S" (respondents Nos. 1 and 2)-No party could be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath-Alleged family settlement surfaced only after mutation entries were attested in favour of daughters of respondents Nos. 1 and 2-Such helated and contradictory defenses aimed at depriving female heirs could not be countenanced in law---Women's inheritance rights were held to be indefeasible and could not be defeated by technical pleas of unsubstantiated settlements No illegality or irregularity was found in the impugned judgments and decrees of courts below--Civil revision was dismissed with cost of Rs.500,000/-,
Mst. Kalsoom Ribi v. Muhammad Amin Agha (Deceased) through I.. Rs. 2022 SCMR 929 rel.
(b) Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)...
S.52 Entries in record-of-rights or periodical record Presumption Scope Entries made in the record-of-rights or in periodical record are presumed to be correct and accurate This presumption remains in place unless compelling documentary evidence is presented to challenge it.
(c) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)---
Ss.17 & 49-Compulsory registration of a document creating or extinguishing rights in immoveable property---Requirement---If a document/agreement purports to create or extinguish rights in immoveable property then same is compulsorily registrable and in absence of registration it cannot affect immoveable property nor create or extinguish ay right in immoveable property.
Behlol Khan Kasi, Abdul Hadi Tareen and Saidal Khan Kakar for Petitioners.
Jameel Ahmed Khan Babai for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Amanullah Tareen for Respondents Nos. 3 to 10.
Allauddin Kakar, Additional Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 11 and 12.