Seith ABDUL SALAM vs Malik MAHMOOD HASAN and 12 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a Regular First Appeal, which had upheld a preliminary decree recognizing the respondent's right to inherit property from her deceased father. The petitioner, the respondent's brother, raised two primary contentions: first, that he was a co-sharer in the suit property, having jointly purchased it with his father; and second, that the respondent forfeited her inheritance rights because the petitioner had incurred significant expenses for their father's medical treatment and burial. The Supreme Court rejected the first plea, noting the petitioner's failure to provide any documentary evidence or cogent material to substantiate his claim of co-ownership, which had been concurrently decided against him by the lower courts. Regarding the second plea, the Court held that under Islamic law, a sister cannot be deprived of her inheritance share based on expenses incurred by her brothers on behalf of their father. Consequently, finding no merit in the contentions, the Court refused leave to appeal.
- Can a brother deprive his sister of her inheritance share on the ground that he incurred expenses for their father's medical treatment and burial?
- Is a claim of co-ownership in property valid without documentary evidence or cogent material to support it?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner/defendant's Regular First Appeal against a preliminary decree recognising the right of his sister (Mst. Noor Fatima) to inherit the property left by their father.
2. ' Learned counsel has raised two alternative pleas: One, that the petitioner was co-sharer with his father in the suit property as it was jointly purchased by them in equal shares. And, secondly, that he having spent Rs,1,80,000 on the treatment of his father and his burial the respondent had lost her right to inherit it.
3. We asked the learned counsel to refer to any documentary evidence or other cogent material to give a finding of fact for the first time on the first plea; namely, that the petitioner himself was a co- owner in the suit property which, as has been held by the learned Courts below, belonged to his father. He failed to satisfy us on this point. Regarding second plea this Court has recently held that a Muslim sister cannot be deprived of her share in inheritance on the plea of money spent by the brothers on her behalf. See C.P.-133-R of 1989 (Ghulam Ali and two others v. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi) decided on 15th May, 1989. And burial expense is un-proved. After hearing the learned counsel we do not find any merit, leave to appeal accordingly, is refused.
4. Leave to . 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.