Inheritance fine | The petitioner approached the court in the dispute over his father's inheritance, but the Supreme Court rejected his plea and imposed a fine of Rs 300,000, as the petitioner signed the agreement to give the money to the sisters in the presence of a lawyer and later signed it. The time was not understood. C.P.L.A.3381/2024
 |
| The petitioner approached the court in the dispute over his father's inheritance, but the Supreme Court rejected his plea and imposed a fine of Rs 300,000, as the petitioner signed the agreement to give the money to the sisters in the presence of a lawyer and later signed it. The time was not understood. C.P.L.A.3381/2024 |
کہانی:
تنویر سرفراز خان ایک معمولی سرکاری ملازم تھے، جو اپنے والد سرفراز احمد خان کی موت کے بعد اپنے خاندان میں وراثت کے تنازعے کا شکار ہوگئے۔ سرفراز احمد خان کی وفات 2010 میں ہوئی تھی، اور اس کے بعد ان کے پانچ بیٹے، پانچ بیٹیاں اور ایک بیوہ موجود تھی۔ جیسے ہی سرفراز احمد خان کی جائیداد کی تقسیم کا وقت آیا، تنویر نے محسوس کیا کہ ان کی بہنیں اپنی قانونی وراثتی حقوق کا مطالبہ کر رہی ہیں۔
ایک دن، تنویر نے اپنے خاندان کے دیگر افراد کے ساتھ مل کر یہ فیصلہ کیا کہ جائیداد کی قیمت کا تعین کیا جائے گا اور ان کی بہنوں کو ان کے حصے کی ادائیگی کی جائے گی۔ اس بات پر سب نے اتفاق کیا، اور انہوں نے ایک 'اجماع/مشترکہ بیان' پر دستخط کیے۔ لیکن جب یہ بات تنویر کے لیے غیر آرام دہ ہوگئی، تو انہوں نے اس فیصلے سے پیچھے ہٹنے کا فیصلہ کیا اور عدالت میں چلے گئے۔
عدالت میں تنویر نے یہ دلیل پیش کی کہ وہ اس بات کو صحیح طور پر سمجھ نہیں پائے تھے جو انہوں نے دستخط کیا تھا، حالانکہ ان کے وکیل ان کے ساتھ موجود تھے۔ ان کی بہنیں اس صورتحال سے سخت متاثر ہوئیں، کیونکہ وہ اپنی وراثتی حقوق کے لیے قانونی جنگ لڑ رہی تھیں۔
عدالت نے تنویر کے موقف کو سنجیدگی سے نہیں لیا۔ جج نے تنویر سے پوچھا کہ آیا وہ پڑھ سکتے ہیں اور لکھ سکتے ہیں، تو انہوں نے ہاں میں جواب دیا۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ قانونی وراثت کی حقوق فوری طور پر فوت شدہ کے قانونی ورثا کو منتقل ہوتی ہیں۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ یہ ضروری ہے کہ معاشرتی کمزور افراد، خاص طور پر خواتین، کے حقوق کا تحفظ کیا جائے۔
آخری فیصلہ سناتے ہوئے، عدالت نے تنویر کی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا اور انہیں 300,000 روپے کا جرمانہ عائد کیا۔ یہ رقم ان کی بہنوں کو دی جانے والی تھی، جو اپنی قانونی وراثتی حقوق سے محروم رہ گئی تھیں۔
یہ کہانی ہمیں یہ سبق دیتی ہے کہ ہمیں اپنے حقوق کے بارے میں آگاہ رہنا چاہیے اور اپنی ذمہ داریوں کو سنجیدگی سے لینا چاہیے، چاہے وہ کتنی ہی مشکل کیوں نہ ہوں۔
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Present:
Justice Qazi Faez Isa, CJ
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan
Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan
Civil Petition No. 3381 of 2024 and C.M.A. No. 7234 of 2024 in Civil
Petition No. 3381 of 2024
(Against the order dated 26.06.2024 of the Islamabad
High Court, Islamabad, passed in W.P. No.138 of 2023)
Tanvir Sarfraz Khan
…
Petitioners
(in both cases)
Versus
Federation of Pakistan through Director Legal, Islamabad and others
…
Respondents
(in both cases)
For the Petitioner:
Mr. Agha Muhammad Ali Khan, ASC a/w petitioner
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
For the Respondents:
In person (respondents No. 3, 4, 6 to 9)
Date of Hearing:
02.10.2024.
ORDER
Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. We had issued notices to the private respondents
expecting that the petitioner may become reasonable and amicably resolve his
dispute with his siblings, but unfortunately this has not happened.
2.
The case pertains to the estate of Sarfraz Ahmad Khan who passed
away in the year 2010, leaving behind five sons, five daughters and a widow,
and his estate included a house constructed on 12 marlas and 218 square
feet in the city of Rawalpindi (‘the Property’). When the petitioner’s sisters
claimed their inheritance he agreed that the Property be evaluated and had
agreed to pay the legal heirs of Sarfraz Ahmad Khan their respective shares as
per shariah. The Property, as agreed, was evaluated but the petitioner resiled
from his own commitment, and challenged his signed ‘Consent/Joint
Statement’ before the High Court.
3.
The impugned judgment refers to said ‘Consent/Joint Statement’ and
noted that, ‘When confronted, the learned counsel [for the petitioner] states
that his client did not understand what he was signing. He, however, also
conceded that his counsel was present on the occasion’.
Civil Petition No. 3381 of 2024, etc.
2
4.
We asked the petitioner what he does and he stated that he retired a
year back from the position of Assistant in the Education Department. He also
confirmed that he can read and write. Therefore, the ground taken by him to
assail the ‘Consent/Joint Statement’ was unjustified.
5.
The learned counsel then referred to the ‘Suit for Partition, Declaration,
Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction’ filed by the petitioner on 15
December 2021. Sarfraz Ahmad Khan died about eleven years ago and when
the sisters sought their share in his inheritance on 11 October 2021 only then
did the petitioner file the said suit two months thereafter. The pendency of the
said suit has no effect on the estate of Sarfraz Ahmad Khan nor can exclude
the legal heirs from their inheritance. The property of a deceased Muslim
vests in his legal heirs immediately upon his death. We have repeatedly held
that the inheritance rights of the vulnerable members of society, which
include females, must be protected. Unfortunately, a practice has developed
whereby those defying shariah and the law, facilitated by some lawyers, adopt
various nefarious means, including taking the plea of pending litigation in
depriving legal heirs from what is rightfully theirs.
6.
The filing of this frivolous petition and the dishonest tactics
employed by the petitioner justifies the dismissal of this petition with costs in
the sum of three hundred thousand rupees, which the petitioner is directed to
pay equally to the respondents who have been deprived of their legal shares.
The said respondents will also be justified to claim mesne profits for all the
days that the petitioner does not abide by the said ‘Consent/Joint Statement’.
Chief Justice
Judge
Judge
Islamabad:
02.10.2024
(Muhammad Asif Siddiqui)
Approve
Comments
Post a Comment