Tanvir Sarfraz Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan through Director Legal, Islamabad and others
This civil petition arose from a dispute over the estate of a deceased Muslim, Sarfraz Ahmad Khan, who passed away in 2010 leaving behind a widow, five sons, and five daughters. The petitioner, one of the sons, had initially signed a 'Consent/Joint Statement' agreeing to evaluate the deceased's house in Rawalpindi and pay the other legal heirs their respective Shariah shares. However, the petitioner subsequently resiled from this commitment and challenged the consent statement, claiming he did not understand what he was signing despite his counsel being present. He also filed a partition suit eleven years after the father's death, shortly after his sisters demanded their inheritance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the property of a deceased Muslim vests in the legal heirs immediately upon death. The Court condemned the practice of using frivolous pending litigation to deprive vulnerable heirs, particularly females, of their inheritance, and dismissed the petition with costs of three hundred thousand rupees, while also declaring the respondents' right to claim mesne profits.
- Does the property of a deceased Muslim vest in his legal heirs immediately upon his death?
- Can a party resile from a signed consent statement on the ground of not understanding it if they are literate and their counsel was present?
- Does the subsequent filing of a partition suit by one heir exclude other legal heirs from receiving their inheritance shares?
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'.
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'.
Judges on this bench
- Shahid Bilal Hassan462 judgments
- Naeem Akhtar Afghan380 judgments
- Qazi Faez Isa (C.J)94 judgments