SHAMSUD DIN vs Mst. JIWAN and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court in a suit for inheritance. The core legal questions involve the applicability of customary law versus Shariah regarding an inheritance that opened in 1933, and whether concurrent findings of fact regarding customary law and possession can be re-appraised by the Supreme Court to overcome limitation objections. The Supreme Court held that no law or principle had been violated by the lower appellate courts, and concurrent findings of fact regarding customary law and possession would not be re-appraised, especially where the respondents were correctly granted their share in the inheritance according to the principles of Shariah. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the inheritance rights of the female heirs.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact on the applicability of customary law can be re-appraised by the Supreme Court?
- Whether findings of fact on possession can help overcome objections relating to limitation in an inheritance suit?
- Whether female heirs are entitled to inheritance according to the principles of Shariah when previous mutations were based on customary law?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant in a suit for inheritance, against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court.
2. ' The dispute is between petitioner and his sisters (The respondents side). The respondents were kept out of inheritance of Noor Muhammad, the deceased owner, through a mutation; which was decided on the basis of customary law. Their suit was dismissed, however they succeeded in appeal and petitioner's second appeal having been dismissed by the High Court, he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. ' No doubt the inheritance opened in 1933 but the concurrent findings of fact by the two appeal Courts on the question of applicability of customary law to the parties concerned are against the petitioner. Similarly, the findings of fact on the question of possession which helped the respondent's side, in overcoming the objection relating to the limitation, are also against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel has tried to show that re-appraisal of the evidence on both the aforenoted questions, is necessary. We do not agree with him. Neither any law nor principle, having been violated, we do not consider it fit case for re- I appraisal of evidence; particularly when the respondent side has been allowed the share in the inheritance on the principles of Shariah.
5. ' Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.