 |
| 2026 ylr 931 |
خواتین وارثوں کی رضامندی کے بغیر خاندانی تصفیہ قابلِ قبول نہیں —
2026 YLR 931
📖 پس منظرِ مقدمہ
👨👩👧👦 خاندانی تصفیہ اور تنازع
⚖️ عدالت کے سامنے بنیادی سوال
📝 ثالثی معاہدے کی قانونی حیثیت
👩 خواتین وارثوں کے حقوق
📜 عدالت کے اہم قانونی اصول
✅ فیصلہ اور نتیجہ
Must read judgment.
2026 Y LR 931
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
SHAKIRA AKBAR and 5 others--Appellants
Versus
Mst. SAFIA KAKAR and 19 others---Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 05 of 2023, decided on 30th November, 2024.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Vo
Ss.39 & 42-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Arts.142 & 144-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96-Inheritance and partition, dispute over-Properties of deceased leaving heirs from two marriages-Estate already having been privately distributed/partitioned, plea of---Legality-Alleged gift mutation in favour of male heirs---Family settlement and arbitration---Legal effect upon rights of female heirs and subsequent suit for partition---Inheritance shares as per Sharia, determination of-Scope Briefly, present appeal under 5.96 C.P.C. challenged judgment and decree passed by Trial Court whereby the suit of respondents Nos.1-3 for declaration of Sharia inheritance shares, partition of properties of the deceased, mesne profits/rent and cancellation of adverse mutations was decreed; the suit was contested by predecessor of appellants; during trial an amendment was allowed-Core issue in the present matter "was whether, in view of the pleaded prior distribution/ settlement/ arbitration and the maintainability/estoppel que questions, the impugned judgment and decree declaring and enforcing inheritance shares and directing partition and monetary relief could lawfully be sustained?"---Held: During the arbitration agreement, award as well as another agreement, except three brothers and legal heirs of the deceased "AK" none of the other legal heirs of deceased "MA" had consented or were party to the said agreements, thus the said agreements had no binding effect upon the remaining legal heirs of deceased "MA" Present matter was one of a classic case where the brothers had joined hands, while making decisions on their own without the consent and participation of their sisters which had led their sisters in deprivation of their legitimate shares of inheritance Every individual participation of their sisters heir in the cases of inheritance was considered to be in shares of inheritance-be in constructive possession of the legacy of their predecessor on behalf of all legal heirs No benefit could be derived by a person claiming proprietary rights based on fraudulent transactions and there could be no denial of their rights on the basis of Art. 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908 Improportionate and unjust distributions of the estate of decease "MA" could not approved, more particularly, when the female heirs of the deceased were not party to the said partition and distribution of properties, thus it could not be endorsed and maintained It was directed that the entire estate of deceased "MA" was to be partitioned with possession amongst all the legal heirs of both the widows of the deceased as per Sharia---Present appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1: Khair Din v. Mst. Salaman PLD 2002 SC 677 and Ghulam Qasim v. Mst.
Razia Begum PLD 2021 SC 812 rel
Hanif Khan Mandokhail for Appellants.
Ghulam Mustafa Butt, Zahoor Hassan Jamote and Ghulam Murtaza Butt for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
Jama Saka Dashti for Respondent No. 7.
Jamil Ahmed Babai for Respondents Nos. 11 and 13 to 16.
Shai Haq Baloch, Additional Advocate General ("AAG") for Official Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20th November, 2024.
JUDGMENT
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J.---Appellants have called in question the veracity and legality of impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2022 ("impugned judgment") penned by learned Senior Civil Judge-IV, Quetta ("Trial Court"), whereby suit filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 was decreed and they were declared entitled for their respective share as per Sharia.
2 Concisely stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration, partition, mesne profit and permanent injunction against husband of appellant No.1 i.e., Dr. Muhammad Akbar (late), then alive and others with the averments that their father Malik Ahmed Jan (late), who died in the year 1991 had solemnized two marriages; first with Mst. Bibi Razma and second with Mst. Mah Gul and that he owned various properties at Pishin and Quetta and after his death, a family settlement was also carried out in the year 1997, wherein the properties devolved amongst the male legal heirs, but they were deprived of their due share by their brothers in the legacy left behind by their late father. The following prayer was sought in the plaint, which is as infra;
"a. To declare that the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 being the legal heirs of (late) Malik Ahmed Jan are entitled to a share in the properties, described in Para No. 6 of the plaint, in accordance with Shariat;
b. That, a preliminary decree may be passed, determining the shares of each of the shareholder and a local commission may be appointed to divide the properties by metes and bounds and in case the property is not divisible, in such manner/event, he may be directed to determine the market value of the shares of each of the party;
c. That, on receipt of the report of local commissioner, a final decree for partition may be passed and each of the party may be given possession according to their respective shares;
d. That, defendant No.5 be directed to pay to plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 Rs.17500/- each and Rs.37500/- to plaintiff No.4 per month towards payment of rent, as he had been paying to them up till May 2013;
e. That, defendant No.1 be directed to pay the share/mesne profits of the plaintiffs out of the income derived by him from the properties after the death of (late) Malik Ahmed Jan i.e. August 1991;
f. Any other order/relief as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be passed, in the interest of justice;
g. That, all adverse mutation entries to the rights of the plaintiffs be cancelled as well in the interest of justice"
The suit was contested by the predecessor of the appellants namely Dr. Muhammad Akbar (late) as well as by Saleem Khan Kakar (respondent No.4) by filing written statements separately, whereas respondent Nos.3 to 20 were proceeded against ex-parte.
-
Out of the divergent pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
-
Whether suit of the plaintiff barred by principal of Estoppel under Article 114 Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 as the properties left by predecessor of the parties Malik Ahmed Jan has already been distributed/ partitioned privately to each co-sharer?
properties described in Para No. 6 of the plaint?
-
Whether the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 to 4 being legal heirs of (late) Ahmed Jan are entitled to a share in the
-
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief claimed for?
-
Relief?"
Apart from above issues, the Trial Court subsequently framed the following additional issues on 16.03.2015;
"1 Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable under section 42 of Specific Relief Act?
-
Whether (late) Ahmed Jan transferred the property mentioned at serial No.3 of para 6 of the plaint to his male legal heirs
-
Whether a family settlement took place in 1997?
-
Whether an arbitration agreement was executed on 23.07.2012 in pursuance whereof an Arbitration Award was passed on 05.12.2012?
-
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief claimed for?
-
Relief?"
-
In order to establish the case, respondents Nos.1 to 3 produced three witnesses as well as got recorded their own statements, whereas in rebuttal, the predecessor of appellants Dr. Muhammad Akbar (late) produced two witnesses and lastly got recorded his own statement.
-
During pendency of suit, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 20.05.2022, thus they being aggrieved, preferred a Civil Revision Petition bearing No.282 of 2022 before this Court which was nartly allowed vide indement dated 20.09.2022 and annlication was nartly allowed. extent of filing
own statement.
-
During pendency of suit, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide o order dated 20.05.2022, thus they being aggrieved, preferred a Civil Revision Petition bearing No.282 of 2022 before this Court, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 20.09.2022 and the application was partly allowed to the extent of filing amended plaint.
-
The Trial Court on conclusion of the trial, decreed the suit in favor of respondents Nos.1 to 3 vide impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2022, hence this appeal.
-
Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia contended that a family settlement arrived at between the parties, whereby the properties were distributed amongst the legal heirs of deceased vide award and agreement dated 23.07.2012 and 05.12.2012, which fact has been endorsed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 in their cross-examination, but the Trial Court failed to take note of such aspect of the case and recorded reasons contrary to record. Maintained further that respondents Nos.1 to 3 had received their shares in respect of the properties, which fact has also been admitted by them, but the impugned judgment of Trial Court is silent thereof. It was also argued that si that since the sisters and other heirs of the deceased have received the rent of the properties in question, pursuant to the agreement dated 05.12.2012, therefore, none can raise objections and seek relief of partition as per their share subsequently, thus the decree being opposite to record is liable to be set aside. They relied upon the judgments reported as 2004 SCMR 557, 2005 SCMR 564, PLD 2007 Karachi 421 and 2022 SCMR 1532.
On the other hand, M/S. Ghulam Mustafa Butt, Zahoor Hassan Jamote and Ghulam Murtaza Butt, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 4, while defending the impugned judgment strenuously resisted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. They maintained that female heirs have been deprived of their legitimate right of share in the legacy of their predecessor Malik Ahmed Jan (late), which is evident from the fact that none of the sisters were party in the agreement dated 23.07.2012 and 05.12.2012. It was also argued that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in its true perspective, whilst adhering to the injunctions of Islam, thus the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court, thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Conversely, Mr. Jamil Ahmed Babai, learned counsel for respondents Nos.11, 13 to 16 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants by supporting the impugned judgment and requested for dismissal of the appeal.
- Heard. Record pondered upon with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the adversarial parties with due care and caution. The predecessor of the parties to the lis contracted two marriages, out of which first with Mst. Bibi Razma and second with Mst. Mah Gul and out of their wedlock, the following children were born:
First Marriage:
-
Haji Akram
-
Murad Khan
-
Sohail Khan
-
Ajmal Khan
-
Qutub Khan
-
Mst. Bibi Amina
-
Bibi Ayesha
Second Marriage:
-
Dr. Muhammad Akbar (date)
-
Saleem Khan
-
Asad Khan Kakar ((late))
-
Mst. Sabiha Kakar
-
Mst. Safia Kakar
-
Mst. Palwasha Kakar
-
Nouroz Kakar
Unfortunately, in the year 2016, Asad Khan Kakar died in a bomb blast at Quetta, leaving behind his widow Rukhsana and daughter Laluma (respondents Nos.5 and 6). The predecessor of the parties namely Malik Ahmed Jan (late) left the following the
properties as mentioned in para No.6 of the plaint;
i. Abungalow No.C-14, Railway Housing
ii. Property bearing Khasra No.75, measuring
Society, Quetta;
2008 sq ft., Ward No.21, Tappa Urban No.1, Tehsil and District Quetta, (Tola Ram Road, Quetta) upon which Al-Naseeb Center has been constructed;
iii. A triple storeyed house at Ahmed Jan Colony,
Jan Muhammad Road, Quetta, which has been transferred in the name of legal heirs of (late) Asad Khan Kakar;
iv. Property bearing Khasra No.428, Ward No.11
Tappa Urban No.3, Tehsil City District, measuring 2500 sq.ft, upon which a garage (Fazal Ustad) situated at Jan Muhammad Road, Quetta has been built up:
v. A milk Shop situated adjacent to the garage
(Fazal Ustad) Jan Muhammad Road, Quetta;
vi. Property bearing Khasra No.256 measuring
252 sq.ft, situated in Ward No.33 Tappa Urban No.2, Sakhi Hotel, Liaquat Bazaar, Quetta;
vii. Agriculture properties about 200 acres situated in Mouza Khushkaba Bazaar Kohna, Tappa Saddar Surkhab Tehsil and District Pishin, and;
vili. Other properties, about which the plaintiffs, at the present, have no access, as they are Parda Nasheen Ladies.
ix. Mutation No.259, Mahal and Mouza Pastamanda, Tappa Saddar Surkhab, Tehsil and District Pishin.
x. Mutation No.137, Mahal Khushkaba Sahibzada, Mouza Sahibzada Karez, Tappa Saddar Surkhab, Tehsil and District Pishin.
xi. Mutation No.342, Mahal and Mouza Khuskaba Bazar Kund, Tappa Saddar, Surkhab, Tehsil and District Pishin.
xii. Mutation No.380/1, Mouza Karez Bazar Kund, Tappa Saddar Surkhab, Tehsil and District Pishin.
xiii. Mutation No.389, Mahal and Mouza Karez Bazar Kund, Tappa Saddar Surkhab, Tehsil and District Pishin.
xiv. Khasra No.228-229, Total area 1,290 sq ft situated at Municipal Corporation, Pishin.
xv. Khasra No.141-142 situated at Band Road, Pishin.
xvi. Khasra No.335-336 situated at Babu Mohalla, Ward No.4, Pishin.
xvii. Khasra Nos.727-728, 735-737, 739-742 situated at Band Road, Ward No.2, Pishin.
The appellants pleaded that pursuant to the family settlement in the year 1997 and then in 2012 all the legal heirs of deceased Ahmed Jan (late) have received their due share of inheritance as per Sharia, whereas the contesting respondents controverted
-
Malik and denied the assertions made by the appellants and urged that they have been deprived of their legitimate right of inheritance in the legacy of their deceased father Malik Ahmed Jan and whatever settlement the t the brothers have carried rried out is not s not binding upon them for they had neither consented nor they ever authorized any of their brothers to represent them, thus the decision and settlement made behind their back has no credence and binding effect.
-
In view of the pleadings and divergent stances, we have formulated the following points of determination;
-
Whether all the legal heirs of Malik Ahmed Jan (late) have received their due share from the properties left behind by their
predecessor as per Sharia in terms of family settlement?
-
Whether Dr. Akbar Khan (late) had sold out the property bearing Khasra No.428, Ward No.11 Tappa Urban No.3, Tehsil City
-
In view of the pleadings and divergent stances, we have formulated the following points of determination;
-
Whether all the legal heirs of Malik Ahmed Jan (late) have received their due share from the properties left behind by their predecessor as per Sharia in terms of family settlement?
-
Whether Dr. Akbar Khan (late) had sold out the property bearing Khasra No.428, Ward No.11 Tappa Urban No.3, Tehsil City District, measuring 2500 sq.ft, upon which a (Garage) situated at Jan Muhammad Road, Quetta to Fazal Muhammad and Property bearing Khasra No.256 measuring 252 sq.ft, situated in Ward No.33 Tappa Urban No.2, (Sakhi Hotel), Liaquat Bazaar, Quetta and Saleem Kakar (respondent No.4) have received the amount thereof?
-
Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the heirship between the parties and the properties left behind by their predecessor so mentioned in para No.6 of the plaint. It has been pleaded that some of the properties situated in Pishin had been given to the legal heirs born out of the wedlock of first wife Mst. Razma, whereas some have been left unpartitioned, but in order to prove the fact, nothing has been brought on record in black and white. Imperatively, respondents Nos.11 to 17 being half siblings born out of wedlock of Mst. Razma also did not substantiate the said assertion as they were proceeded ex-parte during the trial and when they participated in the proceeding in appeal, none of them in clear words endorsed the partitioned of the properties situated in Pishin. rather supported the impugned judgment.
-
The meticulous recital of the evidence on record demonstrates that after death of the deceased Asad Khan Kakar (late), a dispute arose with regard to his share, thus his legal heirs i.e., widow Mst. Rukhsana and daughter Laluma and three brothers of deceased Asad Khan Kakar namely Dr. Muhammad Akbar (late), Saleem Khan and Nouroz Khan in order to resolve the issue of shares entered into an arbitration agreement dated 23.07.2012, whereby they appointed Dr. Behram Khan, Haji Dinar Khan, Surat Khan, Mir Ismail Khan Lehri and Arbab Noor Muhammad Kasi as arbitrators, who rendered their award on 05.12.2012 in the following terms;
Thereafter, brothers namely Dr. Muhammad Akbar, Saleem Khan and Nouroz Khan entered into an agreement dated 05.12.2012 (Ex.D/1-A), pertaining to the distribution and partition of share, wherein they reiterated the distribution and delivery of the property as per award dated 05.12.2012 (Ex.P/3) on various terms in the presence of marginal witness namely Dinar Khan Kakar and Surat Khan, which reads as under;
-
It is imperative to make note of the fact that during said arbitration agreement dated 23.07.2012 (Ex.P/2) and award dated 05.12.2012 (Ex P/3) as well as in agreement dated 05.12.2012 (Ex.P/D-A), except three brothers and legal heirs of Asad Khan Kakad (late) had consented or were party to the agreements, thus the said agreements have no binding effect upon the remaining legal heirs of Mailk Ahmed Jan (late). The emphasize of the learned counsel for the appellants that the private settlement of partition has attained finality, therefore, it deserves no interference is not sustainable for there is no evidence on record to show that the sisters or widow were party and they consented thereto, thus the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the appellants titled as "Muhanimad Sadiq v. Muhammad Tufail (2004 SCMR 557) and "Irshad alias Abdul Rahim v. Ashiq Hussain" (PLD 2007 Karachi 421) have no applicability and relevance as the facts and circumstances of the said cases distinguishable..
-
As far as the property situated at Jan Muhammad bearing Khasra No.428, Ward No.11 Tappa Urban No.3, No.3, Tehsil City District, measuring 2500 sq.ft, (Garage) is concerned, Dr Akbar Khan (late) deposed that his deceased father in his life time had gifted the plot measuring 2500 sq. ft to Fazal Ustad, however, did not mutate the same, which was sold out after death of Fazal Ustad and a large amount of money received from the sale was given to his son Mehmood as he was under debt. He also testified that 252 sq. ft out of the said property fell into their share after settlement with his half siblings, which was sold out against the consideration of Rs.1,500,000 (1.5 million), which was paid by them to their brother Saleem Khan Kakar (respondent No.4). Record reflects that the said property was transferred vide mutation No.839 in the name of Yousaf Ali, Sadiq Ali, Sadaqat Ali and Akbar Ali (Ex.D/12-A). Dr. Muhammad Akbar Khan (late) also testified that after demise of his brother Asad Khan (late) his share was transferred in the name of respondents Nos.4 and 5 being the legal heirs of Asad Khan (late) vide mutation No.993 (Ex.D/10-A). He further stated that the property bearing Khasra No.256 measuring 252 sq.ft, situated in Ward No.33 Tappa Urban No.2 (Sakhi Hotel) was sold out vide mutation No.994 (Ex.D/11-A) against the consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000 (eleven million), which was paid to their brother Saleem Khan Kakar respondent No.4.
-
So far the property situated at Jan Muhammad (Fazal Ustad Garage) is concerned, since a third party interest has been created in terms of proprietary rights in favor of the subsequent owners, therefore, their rights are protected, thus the said mutation cannot rsed. On the other hand, stance of Dr. Akbar Khan (late) (late) has been en controverted by respondents Nos.1 to 3, but they they have be reverse be reversed. On the showed ignorance as to whether the properties situated at Jan Muhammad Road (Garage) and Sakhi Hotel have been sold out or otherwise, thus stance of predecessor of the appellants Dr. Akbar Khan (late) prevails.
-
The instant matter is one of a classic case, where the brothers have joined hands, while making decisions on their own without the consent and participation of their sisters, which has led their sisters in deprivation of their legitimate share of inheritance prescribed by the Almighty Allah, rather the whole episode of partition and distribution of share is contra to the injunctions of Islam prescribed in the Holy Qur'an, which in Surah An-Nisa has prescribed the limits thereof, the translation of verses Nos.7 and 11 of Sura An-Nisa reads as under:
"Verse No.7.
"From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large- a determinate share."
Verse No.11.
"Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females; if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers (or sisters) (or sisters) the mother has a sixth."
lings 17. Undeniably, every individual heir in the cases of inheritance are considered to be in constructive possession of the legacy of their predecessor on behalf of all the legal heirs in spite of exclusive possession of one of the heirs, thus sisters or any other even if are out of a possession of a particular property shall deemed to be in possession thereof and limitation would not be an impediment to seek relief, thus no benefit can be derived by a person claiming proprietary rights based on fraudulent transactions. and there can be no denial of their rights on the basis of Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908, unless the conduct of claimant demonstrates acquiescence and particularly, when third party interest is created in the inherited property. In this regard, reference can be made to the cases of "Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD) 1990 SC 1) and "Khair Din v. Mst. Salaman" (PLD 2002 SC 677).
-
The The apex court in the case of "Ghulam Qasim v. Mst. Razia Begum" (PLI) 2021 SC 812) has expounded by reiterating the jurisprudence as prescribed in the Holy Qur'an and Islamic Sharia by holding that in this country, usually male heirs continue to deprive their female heirs of their inheritance by resorting to different tactics by employing dubious devices as they deny the share of other heirs in the legacy left behind by the deceased in sheer disobedience to the decree of the Almighty Allah and those who do so, leave themselves accountable to divine punishment in the life Hereafter. It has also been held by the apex court, while interpreting the verses ibid dealing with the laws of inheritance that the first give good tidings to those, who abide by the limits set by the Allah followed by the verse prescribing the torment of Hell for those who disobey the Almighty Allah, his apostle and transgress his limits will be admitted to a fire and shall have a humiliating punishment.
-
The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, learned Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa, while speaking for the apex court in the judgment ibid, lamentably expressed his dejections from the heart regarding the practices prevalent in our society for depriving the female heirs by the male heirs, rendered the following observations;
"8. We sadly note that despite our repeatedly pointing out that effective measures must be put in place to protect the rights of inheritance of females, this has still not been done. Those few ladies who have the independence, determination and resources to take their brothers to court are left embroiled in slow grind litigation, as in the present case, which started in the year 2008 and took thirteen years to culminate, having seen its way through four courts. The adage prevention is the best medicine is equally applicable when female rights are impaired. The State must ensure the protection of rights which is far easier, cheaper and less w swasteful of public resources than restoring rights through the court the courts, which is laborious, expensive and needlessly wasteful of resources. In this case, a sister's right to inheritance would have been safeguarded if the revenue authorities had exercised due and caution, but this was not done. Either the revenue officials were inept and negligent or else complicit and corrupt, in either eventuality the system permitted the exploitation of the weak. This is all the more disconcerting in an Islamic Republic, the Constitution of which specifically protects property rights and enables the making of 'special provision for the protection of women and children"
-
There is absolutely nothing on record to establish that the sisters had delegated their authority expressly or impliedly to any of their male legal heirs to go in arbitration or execute any contract on their behalf, thus the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the appellants titled as s titled as "Allah Dad Dad v. Dhuman Khan" (2005 SCMR 564 564) and "Muhammad Akbar v. Province of Punjab" (2022 SCMR 1532) have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the instant
-
Needless to mention here that the improportionate and unjust distributions of the said estate of Mailk Ahmed Jan (late) cannot be approved, more particularly, when the female heirs of the deceased were not party to the said partition and distributions of
-
There is absolutely nothing on record to establish that the sisters had delegated their authority expressly or impliedly to any of their male legal heirs to go in arbitration or execute any contract on their behalf, thus the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the appellants titled as "Allah Dad v. Dhuman Khan" (2005 SCMR 564) and "Muhammad Akbar v. Province of Punjab" (2022 SCMR 1532) have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
-
Needless to mention here that the improportionate and unjust distributions of the said estate of Mailk Ahmed Jan (late) cannot be approved, more particularly, when the female heirs of the deceased were not party to the said partition and distributions of properties, thus it cannot be endorsed and maintained, therefore, we believe that the judgment and decree rendered by the Trial Court by all means is based on proper appraisal of evidence, while attending all the issues in terms of Order XX Rule 5 C.P.C., which suffers from no error of law and fact, except to the extent of Garage situated at Jan Muhammad Road and Sakhi Hotel situated at Liaquat Bazaar, Quetta, whereof the subsequent purchasers have earned proprietary rights, which cannot be overturned, however, Saleem Kakar (respondent No.4), who has received the amount bunt shall repay the said amount to the remaining legal heirs or adjust it from his share.
de 22. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal being shorn of merits is dismissed, however, the impugned judgment and Ahmed Jan (late) situated at Quetta and Pishin or elsewhere as mentioned in Para No.6 of the plaint be partitioned with possession amongst all the legal heirs of both the widows of the deceased as per Sharia and mutation thereof be also carried out accordingly. The parties shall bear the expenses of the lis on their own.
Office to draw decree sheet accordingly.
JK/12/Bal.
Appeal dismissed.