Widow right in inheritance property after 1963.

قانونی مقدمے کے بارے میں ہے جس میں درخواست گزاروں نے 18 فروری 1986 کو ایک جائیداد کی منتقلی کے خلاف مقدمہ دائر کیا۔ استدلال یہ ہے کہ یہ مقدمہ وقت کی مدت گزر جانے کے بعد دائر کیا گیا ہے، یعنی یہ مقدمہ وقت کی حد سے باہر ہے۔

تاہم، جواب میں کہا گیا ہے کہ درخواست گزار، جو کہ collateral رشتہ دار ہیں، اسلامی قانون (شریعت) کے تحت اپنے حصے کے مالک بن چکے ہیں۔ اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ ان کی جائیداد میں حقوق اور ملکیت قانونی طور پر تسلیم شدہ ہیں، اور اس بنیاد پر ان کا مقدمہ وقت کی مدت گزرنے کے باوجود قابل قبول ہو سکتا ہے۔

مختصراً، اہم نکات یہ ہیں:

1. درخواست گزاروں کا جائیداد پر حق اسلامی قانون کے مطابق تسلیم شدہ ہے۔

2. مقدمہ وقت کی مدت سے باہر ہونے کے باوجود جائز ہو سکتا ہے اگر درخواست گزاروں کا ملکیت اور حق قانونی طور پر ثابت شدہ ہو۔

اس معاملے میں مزید تفصیل اور قانونی مشورے کے لیے کسی وکیل سے رجوع کرنا بہتر ہوگا۔

1. **محدود ملکیت کا خاتمہ:** "فاضل بیگم کی محدود ملکیت 1963 میں ختم ہو چکی تھی۔ اس کے بعد وہ صرف ایک آٹھویں حصہ کی مالک تھیں، اور باقی جائیداد کو فاضل کے قانونی وارثوں کو منتقل ہونا تھا۔"

2. **قانونی تبدیلی کا اثر:** "ویسٹ پاکستان مسلم پرسنل لاء (شاریت) ایپلیکیشن ایکٹ 1962 کے تحت، فاضل بیگم کی محدود ملکیت کا خاتمہ ہوا۔ اس کے نتیجے میں، وہ جائیداد کا کوئی بھی حصہ جس سے زیادہ منتقل کرنے کا اختیار نہیں رکھتی تھیں۔"

3. **غیر مؤثر معاہدے:** "فاضل بیگم کی طرف سے 1978 میں کی جانے والی فروخت اور تحفے کے معاہدے قانونی طور پر غیر مؤثر قرار دیے جاتے ہیں کیونکہ ان کے پاس قانونی حصے سے زائد فروخت کرنے کا اختیار نہیں تھا۔"

4. **انصاف کی بحالی:** "مدعیوں کے حقوق کو بحال کیا جاتا ہے اور یہ واضح کیا جاتا ہے کہ قانونی تبدیلیاں جائیداد کے حقوق پر اثر انداز ہوتی ہیں اور ان کا نفاذ ضروری ہے۔"

فیصلے میں کہا گیا کہ قانون کی تبدیلی کے نتیجے میں فاضل بیگم کی جائیداد کے معاملات پر اثر پڑا اور ان کی طرف سے کی گئی لین دین ان کی قانونی حدود کے باہر تھی۔

**فاضل کی میراث**

بیسویں صدی کے اوائل میں فاضل نامی ایک شخص قیمتی زمین کا مالک تھا۔ فاضل کی بیوی فاضل بیگم اور بیٹی افسر جان تھیں۔ فاضل کی موت 1938 میں ہوئی، اور اس کی جائیداد اس کی بیوی فاضل بیگم کو منتقل کر دی گئی، جو اس جائیداد کی محدود مالک تھی۔ یعنی، فاضل بیگم کو زمین کا استعمال تو مل گیا، مگر اس کی وراثت بعد میں فاضل کے قانونی وارثوں کو ملنی تھی۔

1948 میں فاضل بیگم نے زمین کے کچھ حصے کو فروخت کر دیا۔ اس فروخت کو جمال انور حسین نے چیلنج کیا، جو فاضل کا قریبی رشتہ دار تھا۔ اس نے عدالت میں کہا کہ فاضل بیگم کو محدود ملکیت حاصل تھی اور وہ اس سے زیادہ جائیداد فروخت نہیں کر سکتی۔ عدالت نے اس بات کو تسلیم کیا اور فیصلہ دیا کہ فاضل بیگم کی فروخت دوبارہ وراثتی حقوق پر اثر انداز نہیں ہوگی۔

سالوں بعد، 1962 میں ویسٹ پاکستان مسلم پرسنل لاء (شاریت) ایپلیکیشن ایکٹ نافذ ہوا، جس نے مسلم خواتین کی محدود جائیدادوں کو ختم کر دیا۔ اس قانون کے تحت، فاضل بیگم کی محدود ملکیت 1963 میں ختم ہو گئی اور اس وقت سے وہ صرف ایک آٹھویں حصہ کی مالک رہ گئی، باقی جائیداد کو فاضل کے قانونی وارثوں، بشمول افسر جان اور دوسرے رشتہ داروں میں تقسیم کیا جانا تھا۔

1978 میں فاضل بیگم نے اپنی پوتی کو زمین کا ایک بڑا حصہ تحفے میں دیا اور کچھ زمین انور حسین کو فروخت کر دی۔ انور حسین نے اس فروخت کو بھی چیلنج کیا، اور 1986 میں مدعیوں نے عدالت میں دعویٰ دائر کیا کہ فاضل بیگم کی فروخت کے معاہدے کو کالعدم قرار دیا جائے، کیونکہ ان کے پاس قانونی حصے سے زائد فروخت کا حق نہیں تھا۔

ٹرائل کورٹ نے مدعیوں کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا، لیکن اپیلیٹ کورٹ نے اس کیس کو مدت کے حوالے سے مسترد کر دیا۔ پھر مدعیوں نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع کیا۔

لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے مدعیوں کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا اور کہا کہ فاضل بیگم، جن کی محدود ملکیت 1963 میں ختم ہو چکی تھی، کو قانونی حصے سے زائد جائیداد فروخت کرنے کا حق نہیں تھا۔ اس لیے، 1978 میں کی گئی لین دین کو غیر مؤثر قرار دیا گیا۔

اس فیصلے نے مدعیوں کے جائیداد کے حقوق کو بحال کر دیا اور یہ واضح کیا کہ قانون میں تبدیلیاں جائیداد کے حقوق پر اثر انداز ہوتی ہیں اور ان کا نفاذ ضروری ہے۔

یوں، فاضل کی میراث کو ان لوگوں کو واپس کر دیا گیا جن کا یہ حق تھا، اور انصاف کے تقاضے پورے ہوئے۔

---

یہ کہانی وراثت، قانونی تبدیلیوں اور جائیداد کے حقوق کے حصول کی جدوجہد کی عکاسی کرتی ہے۔

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,

RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision No.115 of 2007

Abdul Hussain (deceased) through LRs, etc.

Versus

Mst. Afsar Jan (deceased) through LRs etc.

Date of hearing:

15.02.2022

Petitioners by:-

Mr.

Aziz Ahmad Sheikh,

Advocate.

Respondents by:

Sheikh Zameer Hussain, Advocate.

Respondent Nos.14 & 15

by:

Raja Mehfooz Ali Satti, Advocate.

SADAQAT ALI KHAN, J. Unnecessary

facts apart, Fazal died in the year 1938 leaving behind

his widow Fazal Begum and daughter Afsar Jan

respondents

defendants ("respondents"),

his

land/estate (detail of which is mentioned in the plaint) was

transferred to his widow (Fazal Begum) being limited owner

vide mutation No.1057 dated 10.04.1939 (Exh.P-2)

excluding his daughter (Afsar Jan). Fazal was sonless

)والدرنہنی ا بِال(, Fazal Begum sold out some portion of suit land

i.e. 6-Kanals 7-Marlas to Bagh Ali through registered

sale deed dated 02.10.1948 which was challenged by

Jam Anwar Hussain s/o Muhammad Alam (predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners) by filing suit for declaration before the

learned Civil Court which was decreed vide judgement

Civil Revision No.115 of 2007

and decree dated 07.11.1949 (Exh.P-7) by observing as

under:-

“I therefore pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff

against the defendants declaring that the alienation

is in question would not effect his reversionary right-s

after the termination of the interst of the widow.

Subject to the provisions of the Shariat Act, the

reversioners heirs shall be entitled to get the land on

payment of Rs.900/- to the vendee. No order as to

costs.”

It is important to note here that before substitution of

Section 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law

(Shariat) Application Act, 1962, limited estates of

Muslim female limited owners were to be terminated

under customary law on the occasion of their death or

remarriage and the same were to be reverted to the legal

heirs of last male owners while in this case Mst. Fazal

Begum being a limited female owner at that time,

neither had died nor contracted second marriage, rather

remained limited owner of the suit property till

termination of her limited estate by operation of law vide

Section 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law

(Shariat) Application Act, 1962. On 27.05.1978, Fazal

Begum had gifted 167-Kanals 14-Marlas out of suit

property to her maternal grand-daughter Khursheed

Begum (daughter of Afsar Jan) through registered gift deed on

the basis of which mutation No.439 was sanctioned on

22.04.1981 (Exh.P-12) and also sold some portion of suit

property to Anwar Hussain s/o Muhammad Alam

(predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) vide mutation No.355 in

the year 1974 (Exh.P-11) (detail of which is mentioned in the plaint).

Petitioners being plaintiffs filed suit for declaration

on 18.02.1986 with the assertions that Fazal Begum

(widow of Fazal, last male owner of the suit property) being limited

owner could not alienate suit property excessive to her

sharai share (1/8) and remaining share i.e. 7/8 of the

Civil Revision No.115 of 2007

suit property was reverted to the reversionaries

including petitioners being collaterals and Afsar Jan

daughter of Fazal (last male owner of suit property) by virtue of

Section 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law

(Shariat) Application Act, 1962 and her limited estate

had been terminated in the year 1963 (Section 3 substituted

on 21.11.1963 vide Ordinance XXXIX of 1963). All the transactions

qua alienation of suit property by Fazal Begum

excessive to her sharai share (1/8) (detail of which is mentioned in

the plaint) are ineffective upon the rights of the petitioners

and are liable to be cancelled. On the other hand,

respondents filed written statement controverting the

assertions made in the plaint. Learned trial Court, out

of divergent pleadings of the parties, framed issues

whereafter both the parties adduced their respective

evidence i.e. oral and documentary. At the end, learned

trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties,

decreed the suit of the petitioners vide judgment and

decree dated 01.03.1989. Appeal filed by the

respondents was accepted by learned lower Appellate

Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2006

dismissing the suit of the petitioners only on the issue

of limitation and affirming the findings of the learned

trial Court on other issues (not challenged by the respondents by

filing cross objections), hence instant civil revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioners while arguing

the case has also reiterated the grounds taken in the

instant revision. On the other hand, learned counsel for

the respondents have vehemently opposed this civil

revision. With the able assistance of learned counsel for

the parties the record has been perused.

Petitioners have produced pedigree table (Exh.P-16)

for the years 1955-1956 to prove themselves as

Civil Revision No.115 of 2007

collaterals of Fazal (last male owner) wherein Anwar Hussain

s/o Muhammad Alam (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) is

mentioned as collateral of Fazal (deceased). Exh.P-7 is

judgement and decree dated 07.11.1949 of the learned

Civil Court regarding suit filed by Anwar Hussain

(predecessor-in-interest of petitioners) who had challenged the sale

of some portion of suit property by Fazal Begum, widow

of Fazal (last male owner) wherein it has been held (issue No.1)

that Anwar Hussain (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners) is

collateral and suit was decreed in his favour observing

therein that alienation by Fazal Begum would not effect

reversionary rights after termination of interest of the

widow reproduced above. Ameer Qabil (attorney of

respondents) while appearing as DW-1 also admitted in his

cross-examination that Fazal Begum (widow of Fazal) had

sold out land measuring 6-Kanals 7-Marlas out of suit

property in the year 1948 and Anwar Hussain (predecessorin-interest of the petitioners) had filed suit challenging the said

sale. Ameer Qabil (DW-1) made evasive denial (amounting to

admission) in cross-examination stating therein that he

does not know whether petitioners are collaterals of

Fazal (deceased) or not. In these circumstances, both the

learned Courts below have rightly declared that

petitioners are collaterals of Fazal (deceased).

It is an admitted fact that Fazal (deceased) had left

Fazal Begum (widow) and Afsar Jan (daughter) with no male

issue (son).

It is also admitted by Ameer Qabil (DW-1) during

cross-examination that Fazal (last male owner) had been

governed by customary law and suit land was

transferred to his widow Fazal Begum under Customary

Law being limited owner. Relevant portion of his crossexamination is hereby reproduced:-

Civil Revision No.115 of 2007

رواج"

In view of above, it is concluded that Fazal Begum was

limited owner of the suit property.

Section 3 (substituted on 21.11.1963 vide Ordinance XXXIX of

1963) of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law

(Shariat) Application Act, 1962 has terminated the

limited estates in respect of immoveable property held

by Muslim females under the customary law which is

hereby reproduced for reference:-

“3. Termination of limited estates under

customary law.—The limited estates in respect of

immoveable property held by Muslim females under

the Customary Law are hereby terminated:

Provided that nothing herein contained shall

apply to any such estate saved by any enactment,

repealed by this Act, and the estates so excepted

shall continue to be governed by that enactment,

notwithstanding its repeal by this Act.”

Section 5 of the Act ibid is also hereby reproduced

for reference:-

“5. Devolution of property on the termination of

life estate and certain wills.—The life estate

terminated under section 3 or the property in respect of

which the further operation of a will has ceased under

section 4 shall devolve upon such persons as would

have been entitled to succeed under the Muslim

Personal Law (Shariat) upon the death of the last full

owner or the testator as though he had died intestate;

and if any such heir has died in the meantime, his

share shall devolve in accordance with Shariat on such

persons as would have succeeded him if he had died

immediately after the termination of the life estate or the

death of the said legatee:

Provided that the share to which a Muslim female

holding limited estate under Customary law would have

been entitled under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)

upon the death of the last full owner shall devolve on

Civil Revision No.115 of 2007

In view of the above, the rights of Fazal Begum qua the

suit property being limited owner had been terminated

in the year 1963 by operation of law whereafter she was

only owner of 1/8th share of the suit property under

Sharai law being widow of Fazal (deceased), remaining

property was devolved upon his reversionaries i.e.

petitioners being collaterals and Afsar Jan being his

daughter according to their Sharai shares and have

become co-sharers in the suit property, Fazal Begum

being not owner of whole suit property in the year 1978,

was not competent to alienate it through registered sale

and gift deeds and mutations mentioned in the plaint,

which are cancelled being void, to the extent of the

transactions excessive to her Sharai share (1/8). It is

made clear that suit property means property mentioned

in mutation No.1057 dated 10.04.1939 (Exh.P-2).

The observations of the learned lower appellate

Court that suit of petitioners filed on 18.02.1986,

challenging transactions of alienation of suit property is

time-barred have no substance as petitioners being

collaterals had become owners according to their Sharai

share out of suit property by operation of law on

termination of limited estate of limited owner Fazal

Begum in view of section 3 (substituted on 21.11.1963) of the

West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)

Application Act, 1962 irrespective of disputed

transactions by Fazal Begum who was not competent to

alienate the share of the petitioners, being collaterals of

Fazal, the last male owner of the suit property. The

petitioners’ suit was based upon right, created by the

statutory provisions i.e. section 3 of the West Pakistan

Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962

Civil Revision No.115 of 2007

whereby limited estates of Muslim females under the

customary law were terminated and under section 5 of

the Act, such female owners (limited owners) were only

entitled under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) according

to their Sharai shares being legal heirs of the last male

owner. It is, therefore, clear that new rights were created

by operation of law in favour of petitioners in respect of

the estate of Fazal (deceased). It is sufficient to state that a

legal fiction has been created by the combined effect of

Sections 3 and 5 of Act of 1962. Although the last male

owner may have died long back in the past, yet he is

deemed to have died on the date of enforcement of the

Act (The West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962)

and succession would be deemed to have opened to his

estate on such date. It is recognized principle of Muslim

Law that immediately upon the death of a Muslim

proprietor, his estate devolves on his legal heirs

irrespective of any mutation of inheritance. It may also

be observed that a rightful owner of the property cannot

be deprived of his share unless precluded to claim the

same due to conscious abandonment or relinquishment,

Fazal Begum (limited owner) after termination of limited

estate discussed above had become co-sharer in the suit

property to the extent of her Sharai share and being cosharer in the suit property could not deprive the

petitioners of their share by alienating the property

falling in their share. So far as the limitation is

concerned, no question of limitation could arise as the

limitation could not run against such a co-sharer in

such an eventuality. Reliance is placed in this context to

the cases reported as 1988 SCMR 1696, “Mst. Jannat

Bibi Versus Sher Muhammad and others”. 2010 SCMR

18, “Muhammad Shamim through Legal Heirs Versus

Civil Revision No.115 of 2007

Mst. Nisar Fatima through Legal Heirs and others”, 2015

SCMR 869 “Mahmood Shah Versus Syed Khalid

Hussain Shah and others”

10. In view of the above, this Civil Revision is allowed,

impugned judgement and decree of learned lower

Appellate Court dated 15.05.2006 are hereby set aside

being suffered from mis-reading, non-reading of

evidence as well as being non-application of relevant

law, consequently the judgment and decree of learned

trial Court dated 01.03.1989 are hereby restored.

(SADAQAT ALI KHAN)

JUDGE

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.