LHC restores three sisters' inheritance rights
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
PHC dismisses contempt plea against police
A two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) comprising Justice Ejaz Anwar and Justice Faheem Wali on Thursday dismissed a contempt of court petition filed against the arrest of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) provincial leader Syed Haider Shah Bacha. During the hearing, Justice Ejaz Anwar remarked that summoning the police in every case could hinder their ability to perform their duties effectively. He noted that the police admitted to arresting the petitioner but stated that they had not received any court order prohibiting the arrest. "If the police claim they acted on orders from higher authorities, then we would have seen how they could defy court directives," the judge added. The hearing began with Additional Advocate General Bashir Naveed and the petitioner's counsel appearing before the bench. The petitioner's lawyer argued that his client was arrested under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) for protesting against electricity load shedding and was subsequently sent to Dera Ismail Khan Jail, despite having secured protective bail from the court. He contended that the arrest constituted contempt of court as it violated a prior judicial order barring police from detaining his client. Justice Ejaz Anwar questioned how the arrest could be justified if a court order existed, adding, "Is the police so powerful that it can ignore the judiciary?" The police, in its written reply, stated that they had no knowledge of the court order at the time of arrest and released the petitioner once the order was received. The court also took note of the fact that 18 FIRs had been registered against the petitioner. His counsel responded that the petitioner was already on bail in those cases. After hearing arguments from both sides, the bench ruled that there was insufficient evidence to establish contempt of court and dismissed the petition accordingly. Livestock notification Meanwhile, PHC has suspended the notification issued by the Livestock Department regarding the premature repatriation of the Project In-Charge for Khyber District, and has issued notices to the Secretary of Livestock and other relevant officials, seeking a formal explanation. The case was heard by a two-member bench comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Faheem Wali. Advocate Aminur Rehman Yousafzai, representing petitioner Naeemullah, the current Project In-Charge of the Integrated Development Package in Khyber District, told the court that his client's appointment was made in April 2025. However, on July 1, the posting was abruptly withdrawn and he was directed to report back to the parent department. The counsel argued that the transfer order was issued without the recommendations of the relevant committee, making it procedurally flawed. He further informed the court that the provincial government has already issued a formal policy for project-based appointments.
Express Tribune
a day 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
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Chinese woman's khula takes legal twist
A case filed by a Chinese woman seeking divorce (khula) from her Pakistani husband has taken a new twist after conflicting decisions from the high court and a lower court, raising questions over whether she can legally obtain khula in Pakistan, who will get custody of their 12-year-old daughter, and whether the woman will be granted a visa to stay in the country until the matter is resolved. According to court documents, Chinese national Mir Guli married Shah Zeb, a trader from Charsadda, in China in 2011. A year later, she gave birth to a daughter, Sofia. Mir Guli claims that her husband, without informing her, registered Sofia's record with NADRA in Pakistan, effectively revoking her Chinese nationality, but did not register Mir Guli as his wife. Distressed by her husband's behaviour, she filed for khula in a Pakistani family court. Her counsel, Supreme Court Advocate Saeed Yousaf Khan, said the case took a major turn when Shah Zeb's legal team argued before the family court that since the marriage took place in China and was registered there, Pakistani courts lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter. However, Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi of the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court ruled that the case could indeed be heard and decided in Pakistan where the wife is residing. The judge directed the lower court to hear the matter on a daily basis, keeping in view the woman's visa status, and instructed the Ministry of Interior's visa section to review her case. Despite this, Family Court Judge Taimoor Afzal dismissed Mir Guli's khula plea on jurisdictional grounds on the same day the high court declared the case admissible. An appeal has now been filed before the Sessions Judge, along with a separate petition for custody of 12-year-old Sofia, who is currently living with her father.
