Pakistan Case Law
2008 SCMR 299

RIASAT ALI and others, vs GHULAM RASOOL and others,

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2008 SCMR 299
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.C .M. A. No,1605-L of 2004 and Civil Petition No,1306-L of 2004
Date2005-01-26
Judge(s)Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Actg. C.J. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning inheritance rights in the context of a pre-emption dispute. The core legal question was whether a female descendant of a common ancestor qualifies as a residuary under Muhammadan Law, thereby affecting the standing of the parties involved. The High Court had determined that the vendors were grandsons of the brother of the rival pre-emptor's grandfather, while the other party, Mst. Ayesha Bibi, was a granddaughter of a different brother of the common ancestor. Relying on the principles of Muhammadan Law as articulated by Mulla, the High Court held that a female descendant of a common ancestor is not a residuary and is excluded from the table of residuaries. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner's counsel could not satisfactorily demonstrate that such a female descendant qualifies as a residuary. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a female descendant of a common ancestor does not qualify as a residuary under Islamic inheritance principles, and dismissed the petition.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is a female descendant of a common ancestor considered a residuary under Muhammadan Law?
  • Does a female descendant of a common ancestor appear in the table of residuaries provided in Mulla's Muhammadan Law?
Muhammadan Lawinheritanceresiduarypre-emptionfemale descendantIslamic law of succession

ORDER

' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, ACTG. C.J.--- petition calls in question judgment, dated 13-1- 2004 passed by Lahore High Court. Concluding para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants has been considered. It has no merit. As a result of examination of the evidence produced in this case this Court found that one Shamir had four sons namely Eida, Shams Din, Karam Dad and Imam Bakhsh. The vendors, were the sons of Manda son of Eida while Ghulam Haider, rival pre-emptor, was son of Murad son of Shams Din. Mst. Ayesha Bibi was a daughter of Fateh Din son of Imam Din. Thus, while the vendors, were the grandsons of the brother of Shams-ud-Din, the grandfather of Ghulam Haider. Mst.

Ayesha Bibi was a granddaughter of Imam Bakhsh, real brother of Eida, the grandfather of the vendors,. A female descendant of a common ancestor is not a residuary and does not find any mention in the table of residuaries given in the Muhammadan Law by Mulla. The illustration being relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is not applicable. It provides that son's daughter inherits as residuary with daughters, son's son."

2. When the learned counsel was called upon to satisfy as to whether a female descendant of a common ancestor is not a residuary and does not find any mention in the table of residuaries given in the Muhammadan Law of Mulla, he could not answer satisfactorily despite the fact that he read certain provisions from the Muhammadan Law. In such view of the matter we are of the opinion that female is not a descendant of a common ancestor.

Thus, for the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed and leave declined.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.