MIRZA and others vs ABBAS and others
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition regarding inheritance rights. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as collaterals, had the locus standi to challenge an alienation of land made by the widow of the deceased, Mst. Alamain, given the inheritance rules under Sharia Law. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding no merit in the petitioners' contention that the widow was entitled to a smaller share. The Court held that upon the death of the original owner, the widow and daughter inherited the estate as sharers and residuaries, effectively excluding the collaterals from inheritance. Consequently, the petitioners lacked the locus standi to challenge the alienation of the property, as the direct heirs had not contested the transaction. The Court affirmed that in the absence of proven custom to the contrary, inheritance must be determined in accordance with Sharia Law, which precludes collaterals from inheriting when direct sharers and residuaries are present.
- Do collaterals have the locus standi to challenge the alienation of property by a widow when direct heirs are present?
- Does the absence of proof of custom necessitate the application of Sharia Law in inheritance matters?
- Are collaterals entitled to inherit the estate of a deceased person when sharers and residuaries exist under Sharia Law?
' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-7-2003 in Civil Revision No,1240 of 1999 passed by learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court; Lahore, whereby the said revision petition was dismissed maintaining the judgment of 1st Appellate Court..
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in the memo. Of petition as well as in the impugned judgment.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Mst. Alamain, widow of Mehr Dad, deceased, is not entitled to the land to/the extent granted by learned Judge in Chambers and the 1st Appellate Court, as she would be entitled to only 1/6th share in the land.
4. We do not find merit and substance in the said contention considering that no custom has been proved by the petitioners in the case. Learned Judge in Chambers in paras.3 and 4 has observed:-- "(3) Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court the pedigree-table of Mehr Dad. According to which, Timber had three sons namely Mehr Dad, Nawab and Murad; Mehr Dad was survived by a daughter Mst. Jannat Bibi, son Lalu; Mst. Alamain his widow. While, Nawab had three sons namely Mirza Sarja and Noora, Murad and was succeeded by Wali and Shera, thus, at the time of death of Lalu, as the sons of Murad and Nawab were his collaterals, therefore, they had the right to inherit the estate of Mehr Dad in accordance with the Sharia Law.
(4) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that, at the time of death of Mehr Dad, Mst. Alamain should have got 1/8th share, and excluding the above, the rest in the proportion of 2/3rd share, and excluding the above, the rest in the proportion of 2/3rd + 1/3rd, should have gone to Lalu and Jannat. When Lalu died, again Mst. Alamain and Jannat Bibi, would inherit as sharer and residuaries, by excluding all other distinct relations, such as the present petitioners, therefore, as the petitioners, on account of the inheritance of Mst. Jannat Bibi and Mst. Alamain, would not be entitled to inherit, resultantly, they have no locus standi to challenge the alienation by Mst. Alamain in favor of the respondent, when the same has not been challenged by Mst. Jannat Bibi or her legal heirs, who in fact, could have been aggrieved of the said transaction."
' We do not find any legal or factual infirmity with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Judge in Chambers who has concurred with the 1st Appellate Court. There is no misreading or non- reading of evidence on record. No substantial question of law has been raised requiring consideration, consequently leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.