GHULAM QADIR vs ABDUL MAJID and 11 others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court in a suit for declaration concerning an inheritance dispute. The core legal question involved the nature of the property rights held by a widow, Mst. Hussain Bibi, following the death of her husband, Fazal Hussain, and whether the respondents' predecessor, Charagh Din, had surrendered his reversionary rights in her favour. The petitioner, the son of the widow from a previous marriage, claimed title through a gift from the widow, asserting she held the property as an absolute owner. The trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court concurrently found that the widow was merely a limited owner and that Charagh Din had never surrendered his reversionary rights to her. The Supreme Court upheld these concurrent findings, determining they were unexceptionable. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the principle that a limited owner cannot alienate property beyond their interest, and that claims of surrender of reversionary rights must be substantiated by clear evidence.
- Can a limited owner of property alienate that property to a third party as an absolute owner?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding inheritance rights subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does a claim of surrender of reversionary rights by a legal heir require proof of acceptance by the limited owner?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant in a suit for declaration arising out of an inheritance dispute, against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court.
2. Fazal Hussain (Din) the last owner died issueless. Charagh Din respondents' predecessor-in- interest claimed himself as an heir. On the other hand Hussain Bibi, the widow, claimed that after the death of her husband, said Charagh Din had surrendered his rights in her favour. Thereafter she gifted the property which was in her possession as a limited owner in favour of Ghulam Qadir petitioner who is her son from her previous husband (Pichhlag). As Charagh Din, did not accept the genuineness/validity of the aforementioned surrender accordingly suit was filed from the respondents' side against the petitioner seeking declaration regarding 3/4th of the estate of the deceased. The suit was decreed. The petitioner's appeal and revision having been dismissed he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that Mst. Hussain Bibi was a limited owner. It has also been correctly held against the petitioner that she was never accepted by Charagh Din as absolute or sole owner nor he ever surrendered his reversionary rights in her favour. Arguments on both these questions not having found favour with the learned Courts below the concurrent findings rendered against the petitioner have been found to be unexceptionable. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.