P L D 1991 Supreme Court 1096 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑This appeal relates to an inheritance case. Leave granted as follows:‑ "Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiff side in a declaratory suit regarding inheritance; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. "The case has proceeded on the assumption that the land in dispute having remained at one time with a widow as a limited estate, its further devolution was to be determined in accordance with the customary law of inheritance. Accordingly, the question of legal 'necessity' and 'consideration' regarding alienation by the widow was examined and determined against the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel in support of the points raised in the petition we consider it a fit case for leave to appeal for an additional reason; namely, that the effect of the judgment of this Court in Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Muhammad Shari and others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 407) regarding the application of Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983), would also require examination‑‑particularly in view of the decisions rendered in individual cases dealt in that matter. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted." The appeal was partly heard on an earlier occasion and the learned counsel were made aware of the latest development of law concerning the cases of inheritance like the present one. Amongst others one of the judgments by this Court is cited in the leave grant order while another recent one is Ismail and another v. Ghulam Qadir and others (1990 SMCR 1667). Today both the learned counsel stated that the matter having been settled out of Court amicably, the appeal be disposed of in accordance therewith. A written compromise deed has also been submitted in the Court with a view that it may be acted upon. It has been signed by the A.O.Rs. of both the sides as well as the parties thereto. It reads as follows:‑ "Sultan Ali etc. v. Barkat Ali etc. Compromise Deed Respectfully Sheweth; That the parties to the litigation have compromised as follows:‑ (2) That last male owner of land (Nathoo) died in 1940. Since his only son Shahabu had died during his lifetime, therefore, the land was mutated in favour of Barkatay widow of Shahabu. The area of entire land is 28 Kanals 11 Marlas situated in village Ameryal Tehsil Shakargarh District Narowal. (3) According to the compromise the land will be inherited by legal heirs in the following manner: (a) Rani d/o Shahabu 1/2 share of the entire land. (b) Rehmoo d/o Nathoo 1/3 share of the entire land, (c) Rest 1/3 of the land will go to collaterals i.e. appellants. (4) Appellants will claim their share from Rani and Rehmoo respectively daughter and sister of Shahabu deceased. Sd/A.O.R. for the appellant Sd/(MA. Oureshi) 28‑8‑1991, Sd/Barkat Ali (Urdu) Learned Counsel Mt. Zaki Uddin Pal, SrASC; is also present. Parvez Akhtar s/o Sultan Ali. (Signed in Urdu) Muhammad Rafique s/o Lal Din, (Signed in Urdu)" The learned counsel sought clarification that although the compromise represents as near a position to the devolution of the inheritance in accordance with the Islamic Law and the various enactments in connection therewith, some of the beneficiaries under the compromise had not raised any active grievance and this aspect, it may be clarified, be not permitted to undo or even cloud the effect of compromise on the basis of the Islamic Law of Inheritance. Similar question arose in Ghulam Hussain v. Faiz Muhammad (PLD 1991 SC 218). The same having been dealt with from various angles, the learned counsel need not entertain any apprehension in this behalf. In the light of what has been stated above this appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise recorded above. There shall be no order as to costs. M.BA./S‑640/S Appeal allowed