Relinquishment of Inheritance Rights of Females

Relinquishment of Inheritance Rights of Females Case Laws Civil Law Civil Revision Inheritance Knowledge - Civil Law Lahore High Court Litigation & Arbitration Relinquishment Solutions - Civil Law Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf in his judgment has decided the issue regarding relinquishment of inheritance rights of females in Civil Revision No. 391 of 2004.

1. The instant petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st of May, 2004, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents set aside the judgment and decree dated 18th of December, 2000 passed by learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi.

2. Precisely the facts necessary for adjudication of instant petition are that the respondents instituted a suit seeking separate possession through partition in house No.J/38 Street No.4 Ariya Mohallah Rawalpindi (hereinafter referred as suit property). It is averred in the plaint that the suit property was permanently transferred in the name of respondents as well as their mother Mst. Karam Bibi who was entitled to 1/8 share of the same whereas rest of 7/8 share shares lies with them. It is the stance of the respondents that after death of their mother in the year 1979, her share devolved upon them as sons as well as respondents No.1 to 4 being daughters and respondent No.5 as daughter of Mst. Hanifan and one Mst. Khursheed Begum mother of respondent No.6 and predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.7 to 11 namely Abdul Ghafoor. The suit was contested by the petitioners who filed their written statement, controverting the assertions contained in the plaint which resulted into framing of necessary issues. After framing of issues both the parties produced their respective evidence, oral as well as documentary in support and contra to the issues framed. The learned trial court after recording of evidence and hearing both the sides passed the preliminary decree vide judgment dated 18th of December, 2000. The respondents, feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and decree preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 21st of May, 2004, hence this petition.

3. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that suit was initially rightly decreed by the learned Civil Judge but well-reasoned judgment was set at naught without assigning any lawful reasoning. Learned counsel contended that the petitioners were the legal heirs of Ghulam Muhammad who was the original allottee and thus they were entitled to inherit their legal share from the suit property. Learned counsel maintained that the petitioners were deprived of their legal entitlement without any lawful excuse. It is contended that impugned judgment is the result of gross mis-reading and non-reading of evidence and the learned lower Appellate Court based its findings on presumptions and suppositions. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon “Mst. Gohar Khanum and others versus Mst. Jamila Jan and others” (2014 SCMR 801) and “Wahid Bakhsh and others versus Ameer Bakhsh and others” (2015 CLC 1387).

4. Conversely, Sheikh Zameer Hussain, Advocate representing respondents No.2 to 7 controverted the contentions of his adversary with vehemence. It is submitted that the petitioners did not agitate their claim before any forum despite having knowledge that the suit property was allotted to the respondents. He added that ample material is available on the record showing that the petitioners by their conduct acquiesced their right, if any in the suit property. Learned counsel contended that judgment of the lower court was rightly interfered with in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge and the impugned judgment is unexceptional. In order to provide emphasis to his contentions, he relied upon “Imam Bux versus Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, District Malir, Karachi and others” (2002 CLC 876), “Messers Dadabhoy Cement Industries Limited and others versus Messers National Development Finance Corporation” (2002 CLC 166) and “Messers Badruddin H. Mavani versus Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Food and another” (1981 CLC 339).

5. Mr. Munir Ahmad Malik, Advocate representing respondents No.1 & 8 to 14, while adding to the submissions of his contemporary submitted that whole amount of claim was paid by the respondents and no contribution was made by the petitioners as they have parted with their claim in the suit property.

6. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides, I have perused the record with their assistance in order to appreciate their respective contentions.

7. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be quite advantageous to observe that there are certain facts which are not in dispute between the parties. Firstly, the interse relationship is not denied and all the parties are legal heirs of Ghulam Muhammad who was the original claimant of the suit property, which was evacuee in its nature. Secondly, Ghulam Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties died on 07th of July, 1956 before issuance of permanent transfer order (P.T.O.) and permanent transfer deed (P.T.D.).

Further information regarding relinquishment of inheritance rights of females can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.