Latest news with #Shariah-mandated
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Business Recorder
LHC rules in favour of daughter's share in estate of deceased father
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that it is a settled principle that when fraud is alleged, limitation begins to run from the date of knowledge. The court also observed that immovable property can be gifted orally, but the donee must establish three ingredients beyond doubt, declaration of gift by the donor, acceptance by the donee and delivery of possession. The court passed this order in a petition of Mst Rashidaan Bibi who approached the court against the decision of an appellate court which set aside the decision of the trial court by virtue of which the petitioner seeking cancellation of Tamleek Mutation was decreed in favour of her brother Abdul Sattar. The court observed that the appellate court erred in reversing these findings without any valid legal justification. The court; therefore, set aside the judgement and the decree passed by the appellate court and restored decision of the trial court. The court observed that the trial court has rightly relied upon the judgment rendered by this court, wherein it was held that a gift transaction, particularly one aimed at excluding legal heirs, must be proved with strict compliance of the legal requirements and any deviation renders the gift void. In the present case, all three essential ingredients are lacking in evidence, and the surrounding circumstances strongly suggest that the alleged Tamleek was nothing more than a colourable device to deprive lawful heirs of their inheritance, the court added. The trial court rightly held while deciding the issue that the suit was within time, as the petitioner gained knowledge of the fraudulent Tamleek after the death of her father Ashraf Ali, which finding was upheld by the appellate court, the court added. The record shows that the petitioner pleaded specific facts regarding fraud, collusion with the revenue staff, the physical incapacity of the donor, and forged thumb impressions, the court noted. The petitioner also appeared and reaffirmed these facts on oath, thereby discharging the initial burden. It was then for the donee to prove the genuineness of the Tamleek, which he failed to do, the court observed. The court observed that the alleged justification for disinheriting the real daughters on the ground of love and affection is seriously questionable. Even if the purported intention behind the Tamleek was claimed to be pious, it is inconceivable how depriving daughters of their Shariah-mandated inheritance could be treated as an act of virtue, the court added. The Holy Quran unequivocally guarantees the rights of daughters in their father's estate. Any attempt to defeat this divine commandment through a dubious transaction is not legally sustainable, the court concluded. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
6 days ago
- Express Tribune
LHC restores three sisters' inheritance rights
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has restored the inheritance rights of three sisters after 38 years, nullifying a controversial Tamleek (gift mutation) that their brother had used to fraudulently deprive them of their lawful share in their father's property. Justice Malik Javed Iqbal Wains of the LHC's Multan Bench ruled that the Tamleek mutation, executed on June 28, 1987, was invalid. The court rejected the respondent Abdul Sattar's claim that their late father had gifted him 33 Biggas and a few Marlas of land out of "love and affection". Abdul Sattar contended that the transfer was made while their father was in good health, and that he had obtained verbal consent from his sisters three to four months prior to the transaction. He also claimed that possession of the land was delivered to him at the time of the mutation. However, the court found neither any written proof of consent nor any testimony from independent witnesses to support the claims of offer, acceptance, or delivery of possession. Justice Wains observed that the justification provided — disinheriting the daughters out of love and affection for the son — was "seriously questionable". He added that even if the intention behind the Tamleek was described as pious, "it is inconceivable how depriving daughters of their Shariah-mandated inheritance could be treated as an act of virtue". He further noted, "The Holy Quran unequivocally guarantees the rights of daughters in their father's estate. Any attempt to defeat this divine commandment through a dubious transaction is not legally sustainable." Justice Wains strongly criticised the appellate court's contradictory findings noting that the appellate court had itself affirmed in paragraph No9 of its judgment that the trial court correctly found the alleged gift invalid. Justice Malik Javed Iqbal Wains observed that the appellate court initially held that Abdul Sattar (defendant No.1) failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift (Tamleek), but then inexplicably reversed that conclusion in paragraph No.10 by overturning the trial court's findings on issue No.2, without offering any new evidence or legal justification.
Express Tribune
7 days ago
- Express Tribune
LHC voids 1987 land transfer, restores sisters' inheritance after decades
Listen to article The Lahore High Court (LHC) has restored the inheritance rights of three sisters after 38 years, nullifying a controversial Tamleek (gift mutation) that their brother had used to fraudulently deprive them of their lawful share in their father's property. Justice Malik Javed Iqbal Wains of the LHC's Multan Bench ruled that the Tamleek mutation, executed on June 28, 1987, was invalid. The court rejected the respondent Abdul Sattar's claim that their late father had gifted him 33 Biggas and a few Marlas of land out of 'love and affection'. Abdul Sattar contended that the transfer was made while their father was in good health, and that he had obtained verbal consent from his sisters three to four months prior to the transaction. He also claimed that possession of the land was delivered to him at the time of the mutation. Read: 'Property may be gifted verbally' However, the court found neither any written proof of consent nor any testimony from independent witnesses to support the claims of offer, acceptance, or delivery of possession. Justice Wains observed that the justification provided — disinheriting the daughters out of love and affection for the son — was "seriously questionable". He added that even if the intention behind the Tamleek was described as pious, 'it is inconceivable how depriving daughters of their Shariah-mandated inheritance could be treated as an act of virtue'. He further noted, 'The Holy Quran unequivocally guarantees the rights of daughters in their father's estate. Any attempt to defeat this divine commandment through a dubious transaction is not legally sustainable.' Justice Wains strongly criticised the appellate court's contradictory findings noting that the appellate court had itself affirmed in paragraph No9 of its judgment that the trial court correctly found the alleged gift invalid. Justice Malik Javed Iqbal Wains observed that the appellate court initially held that Abdul Sattar (defendant No.1) failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift (Tamleek), but then inexplicably reversed that conclusion in paragraph No.10 by overturning the trial court's findings on issue No.2, without offering any new evidence or legal justification. The Holy Quran unequivocally guarantees the rights of daughters in their father's estate. Any attempt to defeat this divine commandment through a dubious transaction is not legally sustainable. Justice Malik Javed Iqbal Wains 'This contradictory approach is patently untenable in law,' Justice Wains remarked. 'It is a settled principle that once a court has conclusively affirmed a factual finding on a material issue—particularly relating to the validity of the main transaction—it cannot, without lawful justification or cogent reasons, render a subsequent finding that directly negates its own earlier conclusion." The judge ruled that such internal inconsistency amounted to 'a misreading and non-reading of evidence,' resulting in a miscarriage of justice that warranted intervention under the court's revisional jurisdiction. Contested Tamleek Justice Wains further noted that Sattar, even in his written statement, failed to specify the date, time, place, or witnesses for the purported offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession—core ingredients of a valid Tamleek. 'These fundamental omissions cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the alleged Tamleek and render the donee's claim legally unsustainable,' he ruled. He added that the appellate court overturned the trial court's well-reasoned findings without assigning sound or cogent reasons. 'Minor inconsistencies in the petitioner's evidence do not outweigh the complete failure of the defendant to prove the core ingredients of a valid gift,' Justice Wains concluded. Read More: Women locked out of inheritance claims According to the petition, the parties are legal heirs of Ashraf Ali (deceased). The petitioner, Rasheedan, along with Shakoori and Shakila, alleged that their brother, Abdul Sattar, fraudulently executed Tamleek Mutation No1874 on June 28, 1987, during their father's illness, to deprive them of their legal and Islamic inheritance. The plaintiff stated that Ashraf Ali was paralyzed and unable to speak, hear, or walk at the time. It further alleged that the mutation was attested with the connivance of revenue officials, using a fake thumb impression on the rapat Roznamcha Waqaiti - an entry in the daily diary of events kept by the patwari to maintain records of notable incidents about land affairs inlcuding natural disasters, transactions pertaining to land, mutations, gifts and more. The trial court initially ruled in favour of the sisters, but the appellate court later overturned that decision and ruled in favour of Abdul Sattar. The sisters then appealed to LHC, which reinstated the trial court's findings, declared the Tamleek mutation void, and restored the sisters' share in the inheritance.
