RAHAM DIN and others vs Mst. FATIMA BIBI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners, claiming to be collaterals of the deceased Allauddin, seeking a share in his agricultural property after remaining silent for over twenty-six years. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a civil suit challenging inheritance mutations and allotments after an extensive delay, where alternative remedies before rehabilitation authorities were available. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition lacks merit due to the prolonged delay of more than twenty-six years in raising the claim and the failure to pursue remedies before the appropriate rehabilitation and resettlement authorities. The court affirmed the concurrent decisions of the lower courts, which had rejected the plaint, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether a civil suit claiming inheritance rights is maintainable after an unexplained delay of over twenty-six years?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the claimants failed to agitate the matter before the appropriate rehabilitation and resettlement authorities?
- Is leave to appeal to the Supreme Court warranted against concurrent dismissal of a suit by the lower courts and the High Court?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--One Allauddin died in India leaving behind some agricultural property. He was survived by a widow, Mst. Bassan, and a daughter Mst. Fatima Bibi. On 8-1-1953, a mutation of inheritance was attested. According to the mutation, Mst. Bassan was entitled to 1/8th share and the respondent to 7/8th share in the estate of Allauddin. Consequently, allotments were made in their favour in that proportion. Subsequently, Mst. Bassan also died and her share was also mutated in favour of the respondent. The petitioners claim to be the collaterals of Allauddin in the fourth and fifth degree. In 1979, they brought a suit claiming a share in the property of Allauddin.
The trial Court rejected their plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII, Civil Procedure Code. They filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. They then filed a revision petition in the High Court but this too met with no success. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not think that this is a fit case where leave should be granted. They kept quiet for more than 26 years before raising their claim in the inheritance of Allauddin. They could, if they wished, take up the matter before the Re-habilitation and Resettlement authorities. Had they done so, their claim would have been considered on merits.
We would accordingly dismiss this petition. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.