 |
| Pld 2026 sc 42 |
خواتین کو وراثت سے محروم کرنا اللہ تعالیٰ کے حکم، اسلامی قانون اور آئین پاکستان کے خلاف ہے
تعارف
مقدمے کے حقائق
سپریم کورٹ کے اہم قانونی اصول
(Key Takeaways)
Must read judgement.
PLD 2026 Supreme Court 42
Present: Athar Minallah and Irfan Saadat Khan, JJ
ABRAR HUSSAIN-Petitioner
Versus
Mst. BIBI SHAHIDA and others---Respondents
Civil Petition No. 567-K of 2023, decided on 29th August, 2025. (Against the impugned order/decree dated 04.03.2023 passed by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in 2nd Appeal No.40 of 2021).
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
-S. 42-Inheritance--Dispute regarding right of inheritance in the property left by predecessor-in-interest who passed away two decades ago---Daughter of the deceased claiming her share of inheritance--Male heir claiming property was gifted to him by their late father-Burden to prove-The case aroses from a family inheritance dispute concerning immovable property owned by the parties" deceased father, who passed away in 2002 leaving behind several heirs, including the petitioner and respondent No.1-In 2015, respondent No.1 instituted a suit for declaration, partition, recovery of mesne profits, and injunction regarding the said property---The trial court decreed the suit, holding all heirs entitled to their respective shares, and the first appellate court and the High Court upheld this decision by dismissing the petitioner's appeals---The petitioner thereafter filed the present civil petition before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's judgment---Held: Petitioner (defendant No. 6) neither produced the attesting witnesses nor adduced trustworthy and confidence-inspiring evidence to establish the document in his favor as genuine-The Trial Court, as such, rightly noted that the Iqrar Nama relied upon by the petitioner lacked the particulars of witnesses such as their addresses and CNIC numbers, rendering it "dubious and unreliable"-Similarly, the purported certificate of possession remained unproven-It was undisputed that the predecessor-in-interest continued to exercise possessory rights over the property during his lifetime and that utility connections remained in his name---The concurrent findings of the courts below required no required no interference ference nor did any question of law arise for consideration by the Supreme Court--Leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.
(b) Islamic law---
-Inheritance-Significance and essence stated---The right of inheritance vested in every legalheir, male or female, is a divine right that cannot be curtailed, directly or indirectly-The practice of depriving legal heirs, particularly women of their inheritance is a social evil and contrary to y to the public policy-The violation of inheritance laws under sharia amounts to the exploitation of vulnerable family members, particularly women, and it is wholly impermissible---The estate of a deceased vests automatically and immediately in the heirs upon death without the intervention of any authority---This principle is firmly embedded in the public policy of Islamic law.
Syeda Fauzia Shah v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2025 FSC 1 ref.
(c) Islamic law---
---Gift---Validity--Dispute over inheritance share---Key ingredients of a valid gift--Onus to prove--Heirs acquire ownership of the property immediately upon death of the predecessor-in-interest-The possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be for the benefit of all co-sharers, and delay in asserting a right or challenging a mutation does not extinguish that right---The doctrines of waiver, estoppel, relinquishment, or adverse possession do not apply amongst co-heirs Even when a gift is pleaded, the donee bears a heavy onus to prove that the donor made a valid offer, that it was accepted, and that possession was delivered--The donor must also establish the date, time and place of the offer and acceptance---Failure to do so, renders such a plea untenable.
Mst. Khalida Azhar v. Viqar Rustom Bakhsi and others 2018 SCMR 30; Islam-ud-Din through LRs and others v. Mst. Noor Jehan through L.Rs and others 2016 SCMR 986; Ghulam Ali and others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1: Anwar Muhammad and others v. Shard Din and others 1983 SCMR 626; Haji v. Khuda Yar PLD 1983 SC 453; Mirza Abib Baig v. Zahid Sabir (decd.) through LRs and others 2020 SCMR 601 and Farhan Aslam and others v. Mst. Nuzba Shaheen and others 2021 SCMR 179 rel.
(d) Islamic law...
rightful inheritance are rooted neither in faith nor injusti Inheritance-Women's eritance Wom Vomen's inheritance right, protection of-It is incumbent upon the State under the Constitution and the clear injunctions of Islam, to ensure the effe injunctio effective and unfettered realization of women's right to inheritance-This right is not a concession right Frentes, therefore not merely unlawful but transgression at Divine Will Cultural or Societal practices that deprive women of their rightful inheritance are rooted neither in faith nor in justice, they are remnants of ignorance which the message of Islam came to I or societal practices that deprive women of ustice, they are abolish-The State bears a sacred constitutional duty to uproot such practices by ensuring that every woman is informed of, and enabled to claim, her rightful share in inheritance without delay, fear or dependence on lengthy litigation---It must establish a proactive and accessible mechanism through which women can be identified, rea reached out to, and assisting in securing their lawful entitlements-Furthermore, those who, through coercion, deceit, or undue influence deprive women of this divinely bestowed right must be held accountable under the law and made answerable-A society, that turns a blind e d eye to deprivation of inheritance rights to its women defies the spirit of Constitution and express Command of Almighty Allah-The strength of a nation lies in the protection of its most vulnerable classes--A State that fails to safeguard the inheritance rights to its wom in its duty to uphold the principles of equity, faith and justice.
Petitioner in person along with Ms. Shubnum Sultan, Advocate High Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.