Widow, two daughters win inheritance case after 71-year legal battle

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has restored the inheritance rights of a widow and her two daughters after a 71-year legal battle, ruling that women cannot be deprived of their lawful share in property on the basis of an unproven oral gift.

In a landmark judgment, a two-member bench comprising Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad set aside the decisions of the trial court, the appellate court and the Lahore High Court, all of which had ruled against the female heirs.

The Supreme Court declared the mutation dated April 17, 1955, and all subsequent transactions based on it as illegal, void and ineffective against the inheritance rights of the petitioners.

The court held that the petitioners are entitled to their respective shares in the estate of Roshan son of Bora in accordance with the applicable law of inheritance. It also directed the revenue authorities to correct the revenue record and undertake the determination and separation of the petitioners’ shares in accordance with the law.

Read more: Women’s inheritance a divine right, not a family choice: Federal Shariat Court

According to the detailed judgment in Noor Muhammad and others versus Ghulam Haider and others, the court ruled that women cannot be deprived of their inheritance rights merely on the basis of an alleged oral gift unless the party claiming the gift proves all its essential legal requirements through independent and reliable evidence.

The court observed that revenue mutation entries, long possession of property and subsequent revenue proceedings do not, by themselves, constitute proof of an oral gift or ownership.

It held that the burden of proving an alleged oral gift rests on the party relying on it, particularly where the claim would deprive a widow and daughters of their Islamic and legal inheritance rights.

The court noted that there was no evidence on record to show that the female heirs had been informed that the alleged oral gift would permanently extinguish their ownership rights, or that they had knowingly and voluntarily relinquished those rights.

The judgment held that the lower courts had erred in treating a 1955 gift mutation as conclusive proof of an oral gift. It emphasized that, under the law, a mutation serves only fiscal and revenue purposes and neither creates nor extinguishes title to property.

The Supreme Court further ruled that subsequent land consolidation proceedings, exchanges of land, private partition arrangements or other revenue entries could not establish that a valid oral gift had actually taken place in 1955.

The court also held that long possession alone is insufficient to prove an oral gift, as the person in possession may already have been occupying the property in the capacity of a co-heir.

It reaffirmed the legal principle that possession by one co-heir is generally deemed to be possession on behalf of all co-heirs unless there is clear and unequivocal evidence that the rights of the other heirs have been expressly denied.

Highlighting the importance of women’s inheritance rights, the Supreme Court said that women’s inheritance rights enjoy special protection under both Islamic law and public policy.

Referring to its earlier precedents, the Supreme Court observed that courts are duty-bound to closely scrutinize attempts to deprive women of inheritance through fabricated oral gifts, sham documents or manipulated revenue records, and such claims cannot be dismissed merely on the basis of delay or technical objections.

The court concluded that although limitation may be relevant in certain cases, the primary question is whether the alleged oral gift has been legally proved. If the gift itself is not established in accordance with law, women cannot be deprived of their inheritance rights solely on the basis of an old mutation, prolonged possession or subsequent revenue proceedings.

The court noted that any custom, practice, arrangement or device which has the effect of excluding a female heir from her lawful share not only offends the injunctions of Islam but is also inconsistent with the constitutional commitment to equality, dignity, social justice and protection of property rights.

It said the responsibility, however, does not rest upon the state alone. “Families, Community leaders, Islamic scholars and orators, members of the legal profession, revenue authorities and civil society all share a collective obligation to ensure that the rights conferred by Almighty Allah are neither diluted nor defeated”.

The SC said that the problem is not merely legal but societal. “The denial of inheritance rights often begins not in courtrooms but within homes, families and communities where women are expected to sacrifice rights guaranteed to them by religion and law in the name of tradition, family honour or social convenience”.

Case background

Roshan son of Bora, the owner of the disputed property, died in 1955. An inheritance mutation was entered in favour of his legal heirs on April 4, 1955.

On the same day, another mutation was recorded on the basis of an alleged oral gift purportedly made by the widow and daughters in favour of the deceased’s two sons. Both mutations were sanctioned on April 17, 1955.

The widow and daughters maintained that no such oral gift had ever taken place and alleged that the second mutation was fraudulently sanctioned to deprive them of their lawful inheritance.

After remaining in possession of the property, the sons and their successors subsequently transferred the land through exchange and gift transactions.

The suit filed by the female heirs was dismissed by the trial court, while their appeal and civil revision before the Lahore High Court were also rejected. The Supreme Court has now overturned all previous judgments and restored the inheritance rights of the widow and her daughters.