Supreme court case laws on fake documents | how to identify fake Property documents| Property ki taqseem.Razinama or Maharnama rejected or property qanooni warsaan main taqseem.

Value of the documents which are not clear

Humare haan aksar logo ke pass kuch documents hote hain. Jinn ko sahi tareeqa se nahi banaya gia hota or na hi log documents ko register karwate hain, or yaha tak ke nabalghan ko gwaha bana lia jata hai ju ke baad main court ma prove nahi hote or log apne haq se mahroom hu jate hain.

Or baz oqat log property hathyane ke liye fake documents ka sahara lete hain jiss ka result phir iss soorat main nikalta.

Following Supreme Court Judgement Clear karti hai ke aise documents aik meharnama jiss ke gwah nabaligh the or aik razinama ju ke jirga main kia gia tha jiss per 20 logo ke signature the magar sirf aik banda Court main pesh kia gia.

Supreme Court of Pakistan ne dono documents ko naqabal e amal qarar de dia or hukam dia ke property legal heirs main qanoon ke mutabaq taqseem ki jai.

Judgement

MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA

MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI

Civil Appeal No. 438 of 2021

(On appeal from the order dated 18.01.2016 of the

Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza)

Swat passed in Civil Revision No. 271-M/15)

Mst. Hayat Bibi and others.

…

Appellants

Versus

Alamzeb and others.

…

Respondents

For the Appellants:

Mr. Muhammad Siddique Awan, ASC.

Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR.

For Respondent Nos.:

Mr. Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai, ASC.

(1-6, 9-10, 12-13, 15-18, 20-22 & 24)

Mr. Nazir Ahmad Bhutta, ASC.

Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR.

For Respondent Nos.:

Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, AOR.

(27, 31, 33-36 & 38)

Other Respondents:

Nemo.

Date of hearing:

26.10.2021

JUDGMENT

Qazi Faez Isa, J. Leave to appeal was granted in this case on 28 April

2021 on the basis of the points noted in the earlier order dated 12 April

2017 of a three member bench, reproduced hereunder:

States that the learned Courts below have misread the

oral evidence, particularly the statements of DW-5 and

DW-6, who claimed to be the marginal witnesses of the

disputed document Ex.DW-4/1 as the said witnesses

were minors at the time of the alleged execution of the

document and this is clear from their own statements in

which they have given their age when considered in the

light of the date of the document, i.e. 12.05.1971. It is

also submitted that the document referred to above is

Civil Appeal No. 438 of 2021

neither a registered document or a part of any

nikahnama, nor has it been given effect to in any official

record such as that of property tax or revenue; further,

the possession of the property was also not delivered as

per the said document, resultantly for all intents and

purposes the property in question remained to be the

estate of Habib Khan and thus the petitioners being his

legal heirs were entitled to have their respective shares

in the property through partition. All these aspects have

not been taken into consideration by the Courts below.

Issue notice to the respondents.

This appeal involves a dispute regarding the estate of Habib Khan

who died in the year 1986. Habib Khan had married thrice and had eight

daughters. His third wife, Mst. Gulsaza, at the time of her marriage with

Habib Khan brought with her two children from a previous marriage.

Some of the daughters of Habib Khan filed a suit to claim their

inheritance in accordance with Shari’ah in the property left by Habib

Khan. The suit was dismissed. Appeal against the same was also

dismissed and so too the civil revision. Therefore, this appeal assails

three concurrent judgments.

Mr. Muhammad Siddique Awan, the learned counsel for the

appellants, states that the appellants were denied their share in their

rightful inheritance by their step-mother, Mst. Gulsaza and her two

children from her previous marriage the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (‘the

contesting respondents’). Mst. Gulsaza’s children from her previous

marriage are not the heirs of Habib Khan. The contesting respondents

relied on two documents to claim the entire estate of Habib Khan and to

exclude his daughters. Firstly, a Meharnama (dower deed) dated 12 May

1971 (exhibit DW4/P1) and, secondly, a Razinama (compromise) dated

13 June 2004 (exhibit DW1/P1). The learned counsel has attended to

both these documents in some detail. The Meharnama is assailed on the

following grounds: (i) It was/is a self-serving document which had been

manufactured to deprive the daughters from the estate of their father,

Habib Khan. (ii) It has three attesting witnesses, namely, Daulat Khan

Civil Appeal No. 438 of 2021

(DW5) who was aged about 16 years when he purportedly attested it, Lal

Sarfraz (DW6) who was aged only seven years when he statedly attested

it and the third attesting witness is shown to be Gul Hakeem (DW7). To

confirm that two of the said attesting witnesses were minors, the learned

counsel referred to their testimony in which they confirm that they were

respectively sixteen and seven years of age at the time when they

supposedly attested the Meharnama. (iii) And, that the purported

Meharnama was never acted upon. As regards the Razinama dated 13

June 2004 the learned counsel submits the following: (i) The Razinama

was purportedly executed thirty-three years after the Meharnama yet the

Meharnama is not mentioned therein. (ii) The Razinama is shown to have

been signed by about 20 Jirgah members but only one member, namely,

Saifur Rehman (DW3), was produced and his testimony and the contents

of the Razinama were at variance. (iii) Not a single legal heir of Habib

Khan is shown to have signed the Razinama, therefore, it could not be

categorized as a compromise. (iv) A Jirgah had no jurisdiction with regard

to the inheritance shares which have been prescribed by the Shari’ah of

Islam. (v) And, a Jirgah could not determine shares in inheritance

contrary to the commands of Almighty Allah mentioned in the Holy

Qur’an.

Referring to the conceding written statement filed by some of the

defendants in the suit (arrayed as respondents herein) and which are

mentioned in the impugned judgments, the learned Mr. Awan submits

that those who purportedly signed it did not come forward to testify and

a purported attorney, namely, Ahmed Jan (DW-1), when cross-examined,

admitted that he had never met those who were shown to have given him

the power of attorney nor did they sign the power of attorney in his

presence. Therefore, it was not established that Ahmed Jan was

authorized, through the said power of attorney, consequently, any

written statement submitted by him and any concession made in such

written statement was bereft of legal effect.

The learned Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai and Muhammad Sharif

Janjua represent the respondents. Mr. Janjua adopted the submissions

of his colleague. The learned Mr. Alizai submits that in this case there

Civil Appeal No. 438 of 2021

are three concurrent judgments and that only in a rare and exceptional

case does the Supreme Court interfere with such concurrence,

particularly when all the judgments are well reasoned and without any

legal defect. He states that the Meharnama and the Razinama were

proven in accordance with law. The learned counsel emphasized that the

suit was filed on 21 January 2013 and as such was time-barred and

relied on Article 120 to the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908,

which prescribes six years within which such a suit is to be filed; Habib

Khan died in 1986, therefore, the suit should, at the latest, have been

filed in the year 1992, but it was filed in the year 2013. He further states

that the Razinama was in terms of a family settlement and Habib Khan’s

daughters should not be permitted to resile therefrom, particulary when

some of them had received benefits pursuant thereto.

We have heard the learned counsel representing both sides and

with their able assistance examined the documents on record. On the

death of a Muslim his/her property devolves on his/her legal heirs in

accordance with the shares prescribed by Islamic Shari’ah and

possession by any legal heir is deemed to be possession by all. If

someone lays exclusive claim to the property, or to any part thereof,

which is contrary to the shares as determined by Shari’ah, the burden to

establish such claim vests on the one alleging it. In the present case Mst.

Gulsaza claimed that her husband had given away all his property to her

as mehr (dower) and she and her two children base this claim on the

Meharnama dated 12 May 1971. Therefore, they had to prove that the

Meharnama was executed by Habib Khan. Admittedly, the two shown to

be the attesting witnesses to the Meharnama purportedly did so when

they were minors, and no explanation was offered why Lal Sarfraz Khan,

who was only 7 years old, and Daulat Khan, aged 16 years, were called

upon to attest it. This has raised serious doubts about the authenticity of

the Meharnama and it appears that it was manufactured to deprive the

legal heirs of Habib Khan from their inheritance. Significantly, the

Meharnama only surfaced after the filing of the suit. The Meharnama also

did not find mention in the Razinama which is inexplicable. If the

Meharnama did exist it would have been natural to show it to the

members of the said Jirgah who would have mentioned it in the

Civil Appeal No. 438 of 2021

Razinama. The burden to establish the execution by Habib Khan of the

Meharnama lay upon the contesting respondents, who had failed to

establish its execution. Therefore, the Meharnama cannot be relied upon

and used to deprive Habib Khan’s heirs from their inheritance.

We now consider the Razinama and whether its execution was

established and, if so, its effect. Out of the 20 signatories thereon only

Saifur Rehman was produced to testify and his testimony did not accord

with the contents of the Razinama. The Razinama purported to be a

compromise amongst the heirs of the late Habib Khan but it is not signed

by even a single one of his heirs. To state the obvious, a compromise

cannot be arbitrarily imposed on anyone. Even if for arguments sake it

be accepted that a Jirgah was convened and decided matters relating to

inheritance a Jirgah cannot substitute its decision to what is prescribed

in the Holy Qur’an.

The learned Civil Judge was impressed by the fact that the suit

was belatedly filed but without realizing that under Islamic Shari’ah heirs

become owners of their predecessor’s property immediately on his death.

The legal heirs of Habib Khan filed the suit and asserted their right to

inheritance themselves, unlike some cases filed long after the first

generation of heirs have passed away. The suit was filed by the

daughters of the late Habib Khan claiming what was rightfully theirs.

They had also not relinquished their rights. Therefore, it was both

factually and legally wrong to hold that the suit was time-barred. The

learned Civil Judge further erred by accepting the authenticity of the

suspect Meharnama and that it and the Razinama could deprive legal

heirs from their inheritance. In any event, the execution of neither

document was established. These mistakes were not corrected either by

the Appellate Court or by the High Court. Therefore, all three impugned

judgments are not sustainable and have to be set aside by allowing this

appeal. Consequently, the suit filed by the appellants, who had been

deprived of their inheritance, is decreed by holding that the entire estate

of Habib Khan shall be distributed amongst his legal heirs in accordance

with the shares as determined by Islamic Shari’ah. As Habib Khan died

about 35 years ago and during this long period his legal heirs remained

Civil Appeal No. 438 of 2021

deprived from their inheritance we expect that this judgment will be

promptly implemented. Since we have set aside three concurrent

judgments there shall be no order as to costs.

Judge

Islamabad

26.10.2021

Approved for Reporting

Arif

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.