Latest news with #LHC
Express Tribune
13 minutes 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
13 hours 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.
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
‘The mere pendency of any appeal, revision, or constitutional petition does not, of itself, stay the execution or implementation of the order impugned': SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court clarified that mere pendency of any appeal, revision, or constitutional petition does not, of itself, stay the execution or implementation of the order impugned. A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, ruled that while hearing the petitions of Chief Land Commissioner and Punjab/ Senior Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore against the Lahore High Court (LHC)'s order. The same bench, in dismissal of the application for pre-arrest bail by the LHC on 19.11.2024, maintained; 'Prompt and faithful enforcement of judicial orders is fundamental to the criminal justice system. Once pre-arrest bail is declined by a competent court of law and the accused stands exposed to arrest in accordance with law.' Both the judgments were authored by Yahya Afridi. In revenue department case, the judgment noted that the LHC over a decade ago directed revenue authorities to re-decide the matter in accordance with law. Despite such clear directions, the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur, failed to act, resulting in unreasonable and unexplained delay. The judgment said when superior courts issue remand directions, they are to be complied with faithfully and expeditiously. Such failure is contrary to the constitutional duty of all authorities to act in aid of judicial orders. It clarified; 'The mere pendency of any appeal, revision, or constitutional petition does not, of itself, stay the execution or implementation of the order impugned. This principle is expressly embodied in Order XX Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The judgment noted that in Rashid Baig vs. Muhammad Mansha (2024 SCMR 1385) the apex court made it clear; 'that mere pendency of a petition before this Court does not, by itself, operate as a stay of proceedings, which may only be lawfully restrained by an express injunctive order of the Court. Thus, administrative inaction premised on the mere pendency of further proceedings, without any lawful restraint, is both unjustified and impermissible.' The judgment said regrettable that despite the clear pronouncement of this Court in Rashid Baig's case expressing disapproval of such misuse of procedural pendency, the same practice continues unabated. This reflects not merely individual lapses, but a persistent pattern of administrative disregard for binding remand orders, which in itself constitutes systemic failure requiring urgent redress. The judgment reiterated that failure by the relevant authorities to observe established principles requiring prompt compliance with remand orders would frustrate the administration of justice and violate their constitutional duty. In dismissal of pre-arrest bail case, the Supreme Court clarified that any practice whereby police authorities treat the mere filing of a petition before the Supreme Court as an implied stay or bar to arrest, despite the dismissal of pre-arrest bail, indicates a misunderstanding of the purpose of pre-arrest bail. This relief exists as an exceptional measure to protect individuals against arbitrary or malafide arrest, where circumstances clearly warrant such protection. Once a competent court has declined pre-arrest bail, it has necessarily determined that no such exceptional circumstances exist and arrest is lawful and necessary to ensure an effective investigation. Allowing the mere act of filing another petition to operate as a de facto stay would render that judicial determination meaningless, defeat the objective of ensuring prompt and fair investigation, and risk abuse of process by enabling accused persons to indefinitely evade arrest without any legal basis. Therefore, judicial orders must remain binding and enforceable unless and until a competent court expressly orders otherwise. It must be remembered that interim protection is not automatic; it must be specifically sought and expressly granted. Absent such an order, a refusal of bail remains fully operative and must be implemented promptly and in good faith by investigating authorities. The Court said the practice of delaying or avoiding arrest on the pretext of a pending petition raises serious concerns, as it essentially frustrates and weakens ongoing investigations and undermines the authority and finality of judicial orders. In addition, such a practice risks promoting a culture of impunity, enabling accused persons to evade the process of law by exploiting systemic inaction. The judgment said that investigating officers and police authorities are legally bound to act upon court orders dismissing pre-arrest bail immediately, without waiting for further instructions or presuming the existence of any stay where none has been granted. Administrative convenience, internal practice, or mere pendency of higher-forum proceedings cannot justify or excuse failure to act in accordance with law. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
News18
3 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Rest house staff faces action in Pakistan for using judges crockery
Lahore, Jul 21 (PTI) Four employees of a rest house in Pakistan are facing punitive action for eating in the crockery designated for 'honourable judges, sparking a debate over class divide and discriminatory practices in the country. The Lahore High Court had ordered a probe into the use of 'forbidden" crockery meant for judges of the superior court against four suspects — Samuel Sandhu (waiter), Faisal Hayat (coolie), Shahzad Masih (sweeper) and Muhammad Imran (counter staff). Two of the accused were Christians. During a probe conducted by the LHC Additional Registrar, the staffers in question were found using crockery while having lunch in the Judges Rest House," a court official said, adding that the accused have denied any wrongdoing. The official said the probe body on Friday recommended that Christian waiter Samuel should be removed from service while the other three be issued 'censure" letters. As the inquiry focuses on administrative discipline, this case has sparked legal and ethical debate on social media. One netizen named Samrina Hashmi on her X account criticised the move and asked, 'Are these judges royal that none else could eat in their crockery…are these accused employees animals? 'Eating food has become a crime. Those who feast on the nation's wealth took notice of the staff's 'crime" of eating from the plates bought with the staff's own earnings," another social media user posted on X. Another person named Ali Hasan lambasted the LHC for treating a Christian staffer differently. 'If all accused committed the same basic act of violating crockery use rules, and only one belonging to a religious minority is singled out for removal, it could be viewed as discriminatory. The inquiry must ensure procedural fairness," he demanded. PTI MZ NSA NSA NSA view comments First Published: July 21, 2025, 15:00 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Express Tribune
LHC transfers custodial death cases to FIA
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that cases involving torture or custodial deaths, if falling under the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act, 2022, must be transferred from local police to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), provided that courts have not yet taken cognizance of the matter. Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh issued the directive while hearing the post-arrest bail petition of police official Aftab Mehmood. The petitioner, along with colleagues, was accused of torturing a suspect, Shehroze Haider, during custody in a robbery case. The alleged torture led to Haider's death and an FIR was registered at Lorry Adda Police Station, Gujrat, under the Pakistan Penal Code and Police Order 2002. The High Court questioned the jurisdiction of the local police, stating that such cases must be prosecuted under the 2022 Act and fall under FIA's jurisdiction. Justice Sheikh addressed three legal questions: the proper procedure for prosecuting offences under the Act; whether FIRs registered by local police could be transferred to the FIA; and the status of prior investigations by local police. The ruling clarified that if courts have not taken cognizance of such cases, the local police must cancel the FIR, and the FIA must register a new one. However, if the trial has begun, the existing FIR will stand, and no new FIR will be required. Regarding evidence collected by unauthorised agencies, Justice Sheikh noted that while procedural irregularities may exist, they do not necessarily vitiate the trial unless prejudice or injustice can be demonstrated. He further held that under Section 156(2) CrPC, investigations by an unauthorised agency remain valid unless they have resulted in injustice. The FIA, upon transfer of such cases, can assess the existing evidence and submit a new or supplementary report as required.
