Inheritance mutation

2025 MLD 1246 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 2(7), 117 & 118Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54Suit for declaration with consequential reliefInheritance mutationDispute over sect of deceasedPresumption of faithJudicial determinationPrinciple of Preponderance of evidenceScopeBurden of proof, relevance of

Judicial determination of whether the said presumption of faith of a party holds or positively stands rebutted, would be adjudged on the principle of preponderance of evidence produced by the parties

No strict criteria can be set to determine the faith of a person, and thus, to pass any finding thereon, the Courts are to consider the surrounding circumstances; way of life, parental faith and faith of other close relatives

In civil dispensation of justice, courts are to adjudge the lis on the standard of preponderance or probability of evidence produced by the parties and the decision of the court would tilt in favour of the party having preponderance of evidence

Burden of proving a fact gains importance and relevance only when no evidence is led by the concerned party or the court is unable to take a decision, one way or the other, on the basis of evidence available on record of the case

Respondents/plaintiffs successfully discharged the onus by producing oral as well as documentary evidence that deceased was Sunni by sect, thus, burden to prove shifted on the shoulders of defendants/petitioners' which they failed to discharge through reliable and convincing evidence, that the deceased adhered to the Shia sect

Petitioner in her cross-examination was unable to provide satisfactory answers to the basic questions put to her qua Shia sect, thus, the trial and appellate courts had justifiably ruled in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, as the lack of credible evidence on the petitioner's part did not support their claims

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2023 CLC 673 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.19, 19A, 20, 30 & 36Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9Inheritance mutation

Suit for declaration with permanent injunction was filed by respondent being daughter of the deceased ("H") claiming that mutations in favour of the brother ("J") of her deceased father was illegal/based on fraud; that "H" was allotted the land in 1934 but died before the grant of proprietary rights; that as the sole daughter of "H", she was entitled to grant of proprietary rights; that "J" got the inheritance mutation sanctioned in his favour in 1952 when respondent was aged 2 years; that petitioner/defendant was widow of both "H" and "J" as she contracted second marriage with "J" after death of "H"

Suit was concurrently decreed

Petitioner contended that after death of "H", "J" had paid all the dues regarding he land; that conveyance deed was also issued by the Government in favour of "J"; that respondent's suit was barred by the time as the same was filed after more than 6 years; that respondent admitted that she had the knowledge of all the transactions of property for the last 35 years; that under S.36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred; that at the time of opening of the inheritance of "H" in 1948, amended S.19A of the Colony Act was not available; that "J" was allotted the land under the order of the Collector which order was not challenged and the same was not even brought on record; that Trial Court had not given any finding on the said point despite the fact that specific issue was framed in that regard; that against grant of proprietary rights and Pata-Malkiyat, specific remedy was available under Section 30 of the Act, 1912

Validity

Land was originally owned by the Provincial Government and by notification, the same was allotted to "H" who cultivated the same till his death

Admittedly, after the death of "H", "J" had been cultivating the land

"H" had not been paying the dues/rent, the allotment might have been cancelled by the Government/District Collector which was not the fact

Under Act, 1912, the tenancy shall devolve upon the heirs in accordance with the Islamic Law

Section 19A of the Act, 1912, was enacted in 1951, that is why, the same was not applicable at the time of death of "H"

"J" died after a long time of the death of "H"

After the death of "H", the property was to devolve upon his widow and daughter under S.20 of the Act, 1912, until she would die/remarry/lose

After the death of "H", the land was to be devolved under S.20 of the Act, 1912, to the widow (respondent) and the daughter (petitioner) of the deceased/allottee till their entitlement

Neither the District Collector made any inquiry before issuance of Pata Malkiyator grant of proprietary rights as required under the Act, 1912, nor the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners disclosed the fact that under which capacity he was claiming the proprietary rights

At the time of sanctioning of mutation, "J" being predecessor-in-interest of the parties concealed regarding the legal heirs available at the time of death of "H"

Civil Court was competent to hear the matter where the title was involved and the inheritance was specifically agitated because the revenue authorities were not having jurisdiction to decide the matter of inheritance

Collector had no discretion to grant proprietary rights to any other person in presence of the legal heir

Collector's order confirming the proprietary rights of "J" and sanctioning mutation was rightly declared null and void by the courts below

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

2023 CLC 1290 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O.VII, R.11 & S.9West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.53Suit for declaratory decree by persons aggrieved by an entry in recordRejection of plaintLimitationInheritance mutationScopePetitioners assailed the rejection of their plaintValidity

Petitioners had categorically alleged in the plaint that entries in revenue record had been made by way of fraud and forgery

In order to determine cause of action, the fate of the case was to be looked into through the lens of averments made in the plaint and same would be accepted as correct, that too where fraud was alleged and attributed

Such factum could be resolved only after recording of evidence

Whether the entries and revenue record were based on fraud or otherwise was a question which could be answered only when some evidence was recorded to that effect

Suit filed by the plaintiff was triable by the Trial Court in view of S. 9 of C.P.C. and S.53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Writ petition was accepted and the case was remanded to the Trial Court to proceed from the stage whereof it was discontinued on rejection of the plaint.

2016 SCMR 1403 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Inheritance mutationEstoppel and abandonment of claim

Where any heir, who was directly affected by a wrongfully recorded mutation of inheritance, failed to challenge such mutation for a considerable length of time until his death, deprived his own heirs of the locus standi to dispute such mutation on the ground of his estoppel, abandonment of claim/cause of action.

2016 YLR 23 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

SuccessionCustom (Riwaj)ScopeRiwaj (custom) of not giving inheritance to femaleInheritance mutationContention of defendant was that inheritance mutation was made according to such custom (Riwaj)Validity

Riwaj (custom) claimed by defendant had no record and the area where property-in-dispute was located was totally Muslim inhabited area and there was no evidence on record that non-muslims were residing there and alleged Riwaj was enforced

Riwaj of not giving inheritance to female was contrary to Injunctions of Islam and could not be enforced or promulgated

In presence of Islamic Law of inheritance which was based on Quranic injunctions, it could not be presumed that un-Islamic Riwaj could be enforced

Under the law of inheritance, plaintiff would become co-owner in legacy of her deceased father to the extent of her share

Revision was allowed and suit stood decreed as prayed.

2015 YLR 1383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.64Suit for declarationInheritance mutationPardanashin ladies

Plaintiffs challenged inheritance mutation contending that their mother had been excluded from inheritance by male heirs of the propositus

Both the courts below had concluded that mother of plaintiffs and her legal heirs, were entitled to inherit in accordance with law

Validity

One of the two male heirs had admitted that mother of plaintiffs was his real sister and plaintiffs were his nieces

Statement (admission) of said male heir was important as his statement would result in decrease of his share in matter of inheritance

Defendants were bound to prove clear cut ouster of plaintiffs from the property in dispute

At the time of death of predecessor of parties, all legal heirs had become joint owners in property left by him

Suit was rightly held to have been filed within period of limitation

Mother of plaintiffs was deprived of her share at the time of attestation of mutation

No case of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction had been made out

Revision was dismissed.

2012 YLR 2613 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.120Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42Inheritance mutationAllegation of fraudValidity

Parties were in possession of the their respective portions of the suit-land since 1963 and the mutation in dispute was practically acted upon by the parties, therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that they came to know about the impugned mutation a year before institution of suit was without substance and suit brought beyond the period of six years was time-barred

Plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the mutation independently of their predecessor-in-interest through whom they claimed inheritance, when the said predecessor-in-interest had himself not challenged the same during his lifetime

Plaintiff had alleged that the impugned mutation was a result of fraud but had not produced any evidence to prove such fraud and one who alleges fraud had to prove the same

Finding of the Appellate Court that the impugned mutation was not tenable on the ground that the same was not sanctioned in the estate to which the land belonged was contrary to the law as provisions of S. 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 were not mandatory and mere fact that a mutation had been sanctioned in different estate would not be a ground to invalidate the transaction embodied in such mutation

High Court set aside order of the Appellate Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs

Revision was allowed, accordingly.

2012 YLR 2613 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.42Inheritance mutation

Plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the mutation independently of their predecessor-in-interest through whom they claimed inheritance, when the said predecessor-in-interest had himself not challenged the same during his lifetime.