Mutation of inheritance

2025 SCMR 1673 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962), S. 2-ASuit for declaration and injunctionMutation of inheritanceLimited estateOwner through will

Appellants / plaintiffs claimed share in suit property on the plea that respondents / defendant had become owners on the basis of will executed in favour of their predecessor-in-interest, in year 1934

Suit was decreed in favour of appellants / plaintiffs but Lower Appellate Court and High Court dismissed the suit

Validity

Creation of life interests for enjoyment of usufruct of properties upon death of a male holder were done away with and were subjected to Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962

By virtue of section 2-A of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 limited estates had been done away with retrospective application of such provision

Predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants became the absolute owner of property in question

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

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

Ss. 27 & 42Mutation of inheritanceLegal proceedings before the Revenue OfficerNature and scopeResolution of dispute concerning sect of deceased solely on the basis of oral testimoniesEffectProper procedure

Proceedings before the Revenue Officer are "summary" in nature, which do not absolve the officer from ensuring that the proper procedure is followed when faced with a legal dispute

Sanctioning an inheritance mutation based solely on oral testimonies, especially when there is a clear sectarian dispute, is problematic

Such matter requires a determination of fact that goes beyond simple administrative duties, as it involves significant implications for the rights of the heirs and the lawful distribution of the deceased's estate

In cases where the sect of the deceased is in dispute, the appropriate course of action would be for the Revenue Officer to refer the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction and such referral would ensure that the dispute is adjudicated by a judicial authority with the expertise and authority to examine the evidence, including testimonies, documents, and make a determination regarding the deceased's sect.

2024 MLD 1709 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115 & O.XXIII Rr.1 (2), (3), 2Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art.120Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.4Suit for declarationLimitationMutation of inheritanceDeath of daughter before the death of her fatherBenefit of S.4 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961Concurrent findings of both the courts belowRevisional jurisdiction of High CourtScopeWithdrawal of earlier suit on the basis of settlement without any specific permission to institute the suit afreshFiling of a fresh suitLegality

No permission was sought for filing the suit afresh, therefore, the petitioners were precluded from instituting the fresh suit

Fresh suit was barred by limitation, because the fresh suit was filed after about 08 years of the withdrawal of earlier suit

Daughter (predecessor of petitioners) having died prior to death of her father was rightly excluded from the inheritance mutation as to legacy of her father, because at that time Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 had not been promulgated and enacted; therefore, no benefit of S.4 of the Ordinance ibid was available to the petitioners

Courts below had rightly appreciated and evaluated evidence of the parties and had reached a just conclusion, concurrently, that the petitioners had failed to prove their case by leading cogent, confidence inspiring and trustworthy evidence, thus, concurrent findings on record could not be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C.

Judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were upheld

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

2023 YLR 1961 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 4Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42Suit for declarationShare in estate of grandfatherMutation of inheritanceNew plea, raising ofRespondent/plaintiff claimed her share in estate of her deceased grandfather as she was daughter of pre-deceased sonSuit was decreed in favour of respondent/plaintiff by both the Courts below concurrentlyValidity

In mutations under challenge revenue authorities allocated 1/3rd share in the estate to brothers of grandfather of respondent/plaintiff, which petitioner/ defendant supported in her written-statement

Question as to whether respondent/plaintiff would exclude brothers of her grandfather or that she would also get 1/3rdresidue of her deceased father was not raised in written-statement

No issue was framed nor any evidence was produced by petitioner/ defendant to raise or prove such plea

Even before Lower Appellate Court such question was not specifically raised as evident from the grounds of appeal and also the judgment of Lower Appellate Court

Petitioner/defendant could not raise any new plea that was not initially raised in pleadings or in evidence, for the first time before High Court

Law had to take its own course, and 1/3rd residue of deceased father of respondent/plaintiff after giving 1/3rd share to respondent / plaintiff was to be controlled by application of the rule that nearer in degree would exclude the more remote

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2022 PTD 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.133(1) & 236CPunjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss. 42 & 45Advance income taxMutation of inheritanceFait accompli, principle ofApplicabilityPetitioner assailed demand of withholding tax on transfer of land through inheritanceValidity

Mutation did not confer on anyone any right in any property as revenue record was maintained only for realization of land revenue and did not by itself confer any title on anyone

Efflux of time does not extinguish any right of inheritance because on death of owner of property, all co-inheritors, immediately and automatically become co-sharers in the property

Succession to property of propositus becomes fait accompli immediately after his demise and it does not need intervention of any of the functionaries of revenue department

Upon death of predecessor-in-interest, petitioner became owner of property by operation of Personal Law

Such transfer of right had no relation with incorporation of mutation, therefore, counting of period of 3 years or 5 years for the purposes of advance income tax as per provisions of S.236C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, would start from date of death of deceased and not from date of mutation

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2021 CLC 1506 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.42 & 45Suit for declaration and injunctionMutation of inheritanceInheritable rightsScope

Plaintiffs-petitioners assailed transfer of suit property in favour of respondents-defendants on the plea that the property included shares of their predecessor-in-interests which was not given to them

Suit was decreed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

When legal heir was deprived of his/her right of inheritance and he/she remained alive for a considerable period and did not challenge his/her deprivation from legacy of predecessor, then at later stage when legacy had changed many hands, further legal heirs had no locus standi to challenge inheritance mutation which remained unchallenged during life time of their predecessor

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners-plaintiffs were deprived of their legacy in year 1937, therefore, suit filed in year 1993, when entire property had changed so many hands was not within the period of limitation

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2014 YLR 553 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 52Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42Mutation of inheritanceScopeSuit for declarationMaintainabilityInheritanceLimitationContention of plaintiffs was that they had been deprived from inheritance by creating trustSuit was dismissed by the Trial CourtValiditySuit property was mutated in the names of three sons excluding two daughtersRevenue Officer only mentioned three sons but did not mention daughters of the deceased in the inheritance mutation

Right of succession would arise in favour of successors from the date of death of a person without any interruption and property would automatically vest in the persons having status of legal heirs

Time would not affect a right of inheritance accrued in favour of legal heir

Legal heirs would become co-owners and co-sharers of property left by the deceased irrespective of the fact that who was in possession

Possession of one co-sharer was deemed to be possession of all co-sharers

Possession would neither oust the legal heirs from their entitlement nor it would make a person in possession the exclusive owner of such property

Entry in the mutation was not a document of title but was a presumptive piece of evidence for establishment of the same

Presumption of truth would attach to the entries in the revenue record but such presumption was rebutable

Entry recorded in the revenue record could be challenged on having knowledge of the same or if a person did not consider himself to be aggrieved of such entry but having an interest in it could approach a court when he became aggrieved of such entry or someone had denied his right

Date of recording entry would not be the starting point for running of the time for filing a suit for declaration instead when grievance arose would be the relevant time

Option would lie with the person for filing a suit for declaration when his right was denied and every denial of right would furnish a fresh cause of action

Such right was to be exercised within a period of six years on accrual of cause of action

Time in a suit for declaration should be counted from when the right to sue accrued and same was refused by the other party and date of entry in the mutation would be immaterial

Span of time would neither extinguish right of inheritance nor adverse to the title of legal heir

Possession of one legal heir was deemed to be possession of all the legal heirs

Right of inheritance was established by the plaintiffs and shares of all the legal heirs were to be determined and satisfied

Claim of plaintiffs was based on the right of inheritance, therefore neither time would affect the same nor there would be any question of limitation

Suit of plaintiffs was maintainable

Trial Court decided the case on mere presumptions

Plaintiffs could not be deprived of their right due to lapse of time

High Court framed the issues and remanded the case to the Trial Court with the direction to implead the Provincial Government and then decide the same

Appeal was accepted accordingly.

2013 SCMR 299 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 42Suit for declarationMutation of inheritanceClaimant's predecessor-in-interest not challenging such mutation during his/her lifeEffect

Petitioners' filed suit for declaration impugning mutation of inheritance and claimed their share of inheritance as successors of the deceased lady in question

Suit was decreed by Trial Court, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court

High Court reversed findings of courts below and dismissed the suit

Petitioners contended that they had a bona fide right to claim their share of inheritance, and that High Court non-suited them merely on the ground of limitation

Validity

Admittedly impugned mutation of inheritance dated 9-7-1927 was never challenged by the deceased lady in question, who remained alive till the year 1975, and no reason whatsoever was reflected either in the plaint or in the evidence led to indicate as to why she did not challenge the said mutation

Petitioners never claimed that either they or their predecessor-in-interest were unaware of the impugned mutation

Judgment of High Court was unexceptionable in such circumstances

Petition was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.