SCMR 2022

2022 PLP 346 (SCMR)

TAHSINULLAH — Appellant Versus Mst. PARVEEN (DECEASED) through L.Rs. and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Appeal No. 46-P of 2020, decided on 25th November, 2021.
Honorable Judges
Qazi Faez Isa and Yahya Afridi, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2022 PLP 346 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Qazi Faez Isa and Yahya Afridi, JJ
Parties TAHSINULLAH — Appellant Versus Mst. PARVEEN (DECEASED) through L.Rs. and others — Respondents
Primary Law (b) Islamic law, (a) Islamic law
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 346 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Islamic law, (a) Islamic law as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 346 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Faez Isa and Yahya Afridi, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 346 (SCMR) (TAHSINULLAH — Appellant Versus Mst. PARVEEN (DECEASED) through L.Rs. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Islamic law (a) Islamic law

Representation

  • Nasimullah, Advocate Supreme Court (through video-link from Peshawar) and Abdul Qayyum Sarwar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
  • Nemo for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 03.02.2020 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Civil Revision No. 900-P/08)

Gift

Proof

Brother depriving his sisters of their share in inheritance through a purported gift of immoveable property made by their father

Violation of laws of Almighty Allah

In the present case, perusal of the gift/tamleek mutation showed that acceptance of the gift by the appellant (brother) was not mentioned

Alleged donor/father of the parties had made the said gift the very same day that he died

Burden to establish the gift lay upon the appellant, which he failed to discharge and the fact that it was made by his father on the very day that he died made it extremely suspect and unreliable

Sisters themselves had filed the suit in their lifetime, which was sufficient to sustain it

High Court had rightly decreed the suit filed by the sisters challenging the gift/ tamleek mutation

Appeal was dismissed with the observations that it was a matter of great regret that the laws of Almighty Allah and the law of the country was not abided by the appellant, who brought forth a fictitious gift in his favour by depriving the legal heirs of their respective shares as prescribed by Islamic Shari'ah and on the basis of such manipulation the appellant managed to remain in possession till date, that is, after a period of almost thirty-eight years.

Inheritance

Legal heirs

Constructive possession of immoveable property

Upon the death of a Muslim his/her legal heirs became the owners of the estate left by him/her and possession of any one of the co-owners was deemed to be the possession by all.

Judgment & Decree

Qazi Faez Isa, J. This appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of one hundred and eighty-three days. Civil Misc. Application No. 855-P of 2020 has been filed to condone the delay on the ground that there was Covid-19 virus lockdown, which resulted in the delayed filing of the appeal. This Court has issued a Circular dated 22 July 2020 wherein in respect of the said virus and lockdown a certain period of time has been excluded, but even if such period is excluded, the appeal is still time barred. As the benefit of the said Circular has already been availed of and no other reason has been given to condone delay this appeal would have merited dismissal, but since there is no attendance on behalf of the respondents, we proceeded to examine the merits of the case to ensure that no injustice has been done.

2. The learned counsel states that Ghulam Haider was the father of the appellant and had gifted his lands to the appellant vide gift/tamleek mutation No. 5341, attested on 4 June 1983, however, the gift mutation was assailed for no good reason by respondents Nos. 1 to 6, the sisters of the appellant ('the sisters'), by filing a suit which was decreed and the appeal against the same was allowed on the ground that the suit was belatedly filed, however, the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Judge of the Appellate Court was set aside by the learned Judge of the High Court in the Civil Revision filed by the sisters for no good reason.

3. We have examined the said mutation wherein the acceptance of the gift by the appellant is not mentioned. It also came in evidence that Ghulam Haider had made the said gift on 3 May 1983, the very same day that he died. The burden to establish the gift lay upon the appellant, which he failed to discharge and the fact that it was made by his father on the very day that he died makes it extremely suspect and unreliable. Upon the death of a Muslim his/her legal heirs become the owners of the estate left by him/her and possession of any one of the co-owners is deemed to be the possession by all. This coupled with the fact that the sisters themselves had filed a suit in their lifetime was sufficient to sustain it and the reason given by the learned Judge of the Appellate Court for setting aside the judgment of the Civil Judge was not sustainable, which was rightly set aside through the impugned judgment. Neither the judgment of the Civil Judge nor that of the learned Judge of the High Court can be faulted.

4. This appeal being meritless is dismissed on merits as well as being time barred with costs throughout. We enquired from the learned counsel whether the sisters were still alive and he stated that out of six sisters only two survive. It is a matter of great regret that the laws of Almighty Allah and the law of Pakistan was not abided by the appellant, who brought forth a fictitious gift in his favour by depriving the legal heirs of their respective shares as prescribed by Islamic Shari'ah and on the basis of such manipulation the appellant managed to remain in possession till date, that is, after a period of almost thirty-eight years. However, the learned counsel states that since possession is with the appellant, execution has been filed. This is most unfortunate. First, retaining by fraudulent means the property and then compelling his sisters/their legal heirs to retrieve their God ordained share by filing execution proceedings. Therefore, we direct the District Collector, Charsadda, who we are informed to be the concerned Collector, to implement the decision of the Trial Court, which was sustained by the High Court and to endorse the names of the legal heirs of Ghulam Haider as per their respective shares prescribed by Islamic Shari'ah and to deliver possession to the respective parties within three months from today. Copy of the judgment passed today be sent to the respondents and to the District Collector, Charsadda for information and compliance. MWA/T-4/SC Appeal dismissed.