Claim of inheritance

2023 CLC 1468 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Claim of inheritanceScopeIn cases of inheritance, the plaintiff seeking a share in the legacy of his predecessor must prove two factsFirstly, he needs to establish his relationship with the common predecessor of the partiesSecondly, he must demonstrate that the suit property is indeed the legacy of their common predecessor

On the other hand, if the defendant concedes to the relationship and legacy without raising any independent or exclusive plea, then the Court is required to pass a decree in favor of the plaintiff immediately

However, if the defendant puts forth a specific plea claiming disinheritance based on a particular argument, then the defendant is obligated to provide positive, convincing, and trustworthy evidence to support his claim and exclude the plaintiff from the inheritance

Moreover, any legal heir who claims disinheritance on the basis of any mode of transaction or any other plea, then he is under heavy burden to prove the same as the plea of disinheritance goes squarely against the law of the land as well as the command of Allah Almighty

Therefore, the law places a weighty responsibility on such individuals to substantiate their claim.

2023 CLC 1468 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Claim of inheritanceScope

Moment a Muslim dies, his legacy devolves to all his legal heirs as per their respective prescribed shares and if any person disputes or controverts these prescribed shares, then a heavy burden of proof lies on him to prove those exceptional circumstances through a reliable, confidence inspiring and legally admissible evidence.

2023 CLC 1468 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.42Suit for declarationClaim of inheritance

Plaintiffs filed suits for a declaration, claiming their entitlement to the Shari share in the legacy of their respective fathers

Contention of the defendant was that the plaintiffs' share in the legacy had been given by way of a cash amount and gold ornaments at the time of their respective marriages

Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently decreed the suit

Validity

Defendant failed to establish his plea of disinheritance, as he only made bald assertions

Moreover, the defendant did not provide any iota of evidence to support his case

It remained a mystery as to how much cash amount and how much gold was handed over to the plaintiffs by their predecessor-in-interest

Additionally, there was no record or witnesses to establish that the cash amount and gold ornaments were handed over to the plaintiffs as their share in the legacy

Therefore, the defendant's plea could not be entertained

Two courts below, based on the available evidence, recorded their findings of facts and law, which the High Court found to be perfectly in accordance with evidence.

2017 MLD 689 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Oral GiftSuit for declaration and permanent injunction on basis of oral giftClaim of inheritancePlaintiffs filed suit on the ground that suit property was owned by the father (deceased) of the parties to the caseOn chehlum of deceased, defendants-real sisters of plaintiff orally gifted the suit property in favour of plaintiffWhen plaintiff intended to transfer property to his son defendants refused to honour their commitmentSuit of plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court as well as lower appellate courtValidity

Plaintiff had failed to fulfill the mandatory requirements of an "oral gift" as no specific date, time and place was mentioned in the plaint

Witnesses could not substantiate claim of plaintiff even plaintiff himself failed to prove his case

Defendants flatly and categorically denied the factum of making oral gift in favor of plaintiff

Women who were weaker segment of society were not to be deprived of their right of inheritance in the name of custom or by emotionally exploiting them

Revision was dismissed accordingly.

2017 MLD 338 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Suit for declarationLegal heirsClaim of inheritanceClaim of plaintiffs was that they were legal heirs of deceased, they had been deprived of the inheritance of deceased

Plaintiffs produced two witnesses to prove themselves as legal heirs of deceased but oral version had not been proved by any confidence inspiring evidence

Mother of plaintiffs was also not produced as witness

Defendant produced Record Keeper who brought original register of pert-sarkar of impugned mutation

Tehsildar who attested the mutation was also produced and was not cross examined with regard to affixing of thumb impression, identification and receipt of consideration

Possession of defendant was also admitted

Allegation of fraud was not pleaded in plaint nor satisfactory evidence was produced in such regard

Findings of the trial court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff were restored

Revision was allowed accordingly.

2017 YLRN 292 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 5Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (IX of 1948), S.2-A [Since repealed]Claim of inheritanceCustom / Riwaj-i-AamProof

Plaintiff (daughter of predecessor in-interest of parties) filed suit, claimed her share and sought cancellation of inheritance mutations

Defendants (sons) filed rival declaratory suit and contended that predecessor in-interest of parties was governed by custom and plaintiff (daughter) was not entitled to inherit legacy of her father and prayed for cancellation of mutation

Defendants (sons) had alleged in pleadings that their deceased father had died in January, 1948 while their witnesses stated that deceased took his last breath 2-1/2-3 months prior to partition

Defendants (sons) tried their best to prove that their father died prior to promulgation of Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 but they did not endeavor to bring on record copy of Riwaj-i-Aam or any other material to prove that deceased was governed by custom and the plaintiff (daughter) was not entitled to inherit legacy of her propositus

Plaintiff (daughter's) written statement did not exclusively deny time period of death of propositus but alleged custom was explicitly rebuffed by her

Objection regarding limitation raised by defendants (sons) could not be a bar to the suit instituted by plaintiff (daughter)

Revision was dismissed accordingly.