1992 PLP 92 (CLC)

This civil revision has arisen out of the facts stated below:‑‑ 28 Kanals,13 Marlas of land situate at Mauza Turkwala, Tehsil Guvar Khan, beloned to Mst. Naik Bakht. She died in January, 1974, leaving behind her surviving two sons Lal Hussain and Noor Hussain, and daughter Mst. Saidan Bibi. By inheritance mutation N0.1495, attested on 20‑11‑1984, Revenue Officer distributed her land to her son Lal Hussain and daughter Mst. Saidan Bibi in proportion to 2.1 shares. Noor Hussain was excluded from inheritance because he had slain the propositus. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted a civil suit for his 2/5th share in the estate left by his mother. The other brother and sister contested the suit and resisted his right to share the inheritance with them. It was avered that the plaintiff had caused the murder of Mst. Naik Bakht and, therefore, was debarred from taking share in the property left by her. It was further averred that the civil suit when instituted was hit by bar of limitation.

2. Civil suit was tried on the following issues:‑‑ (1) Whether the plaintiff is legal heir of deceased Mst. Naik Bakh, if so, is he entitled to share in her estate through joint possession? OPP (2) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPP. (3) Relief. Upon evidence, trial Court found that consequent upon acquittal by the High Court of the charge of murder, the plaintiff was exonerated of the offence and an impediment caused to his inheriting the land of his mother was effectively removed and gave him his legal share in the estate of his mother. On the second issue, trial Court found that the suit was not barred by limitation. Consequently, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 20‑2‑1989. In appeal, lower Appellate Court agreed and dismissed it on 4‑3‑1991.

3. It is submitted that acquittal of respondent had proceeded merely on benefit of doubt and it being not an "honourable acquittal" on merits, respondent still suffered from the blemish and was not entitled to take his share in the land owned and left by his mother.

4. Relationship inter se parties is not denied. Plaintiff‑respondent is the real son of Mst. Naik Bakhst deceased. But for impediment caused by charge of murder, his right of inheritance was beyond dispute or doubt. The trial Court found respondent guilty of the charge and sentenced him to death. In appeal, the High Court acquitted him of the charge vide its judgment Ex.Pl. Acquittal was not assailed further. Thus, it attained finality under law. Independent of the judgment of acquittal by the High Court by which the respondent was exonerated of the charge of murder, there is neither convincing nor sufficient evidence to support the charge against him. Oral evidence led in this behalf is unsatisfactory. It is an agreed statement in Sunni Law that a person, who has caused the death of another, whether intentionally or by mistake, negligence or accident is precluded from succeeding to his estate. Homicide is an insuperable impediment to succession under Muslum Law. Apart from standard textbooks on Muslim Law, cases Khan Gul Khan v. Mst. Karam Nishan and others (A I R 1940 Lah. 172), Muzaffar Sarfraz and others v. Mt. Rahim Jana and others (A I R 1940 Pesh. 21), Mst. Beguman and 2 others v. Sarro and another (P L D 1964 (W.P) Lahore 451), Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Muhammad Yousaf and 4 others (PLD 1981 Azad J & K 49), Syed Muhammad Nawaz Shah and others v. Amir Hussain Shah and others (1989 C L C 1712 and Maheea and 5 others v. Shaiya and 7 others (P L D 1991 SC 724) clearly supported the above statement of law.

5. In the case under consideration, respondent was acquitted after trial on a consideration of the evidence led in support of the charge. It was not an acquittal which occurred due to certain technical defects, but was clearly an acquittal on merits. Black's Law Dictionary defines term "acquittal" in criminal law as "the legal and formal certification of the innocence of a person who has been charged with crime; a deliverance or setting free a person from a‑ charge of guilt; finding of not guilty." In Warton's Law Lexicon "acquittal" means " to free, acquit, or discharge, a deliverance and setting free of a person from the suspicion or guilt of an offence. "Acquittal is a judicial discharge from accusation. In my view, therefore, acquittal of the respondent washed away the charge and completely exonerated him of its taint. On record, therefore, it could not be convincingly held that the respondent was guilty of homicide and thus debarred from inheriting the property owned and left by his mother. Upon tins view of the matter, Courts below rightly acknowledge respondent's right of inheritance and correctly gave him his due share in the land left by his mother. Finding on issue No.2 was not agitated before this Court. No other point was urged or argued. In view of the aforesaid, civil revision has little merit in it. It is dismissed in limine. AA./L‑2/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.