Gift depriving other legal heirs is invalid

Gift depriving other legal heirs is invalid
Islamic Law… Inheritance… gift(Hiba-bil-Iwaz)—disinheritance of legal heir due to disobedience—scope—plaintiff was deprived of his legal share from the inheritance due to disobedience and gift mutation was made in favour of defendants—suit filed by the plaintiff against the said mutation of gift was decreed concurrently— validity— plaintiff was deprived from the inheritance of his father due to disobedience to hold the impugned gift as valid has no sanctity nor on this sole object lawful heirs could be deprived from inheritance—Muslim owner could validly transfer his property only through the mode recognized by Islam and not otherwise— Muslim could gift away his property to anyone but in case transfer was made with intent to deprive the heirs of their of inheritance on the ground not recognized by law then same would be void— Impugned gift was made by the father in his life time in favour of defendants. i.e. daughter to deprive the son from inheritance on negative reason which was forbidden under the law— Object of donor in the present case was to deprive the plaintiff of his legal share in his property— findings recorded by the courts below with regard to plea of “aaQ” ( EXCLUSION FROM INHERTANCE) taken by the defendants were based on proper declaration that impugned mutation was invalid on that ground—impugned gift was Hibba-bil_Awez fro an amount of Rs.200,000 and plaintiff would be liable to return the said amount to the defendants—no other illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below… Revision was dismissed in circumstance.
2018 CLC 1535 Balochistan
2005 SCMR 135
PLD 2006 SC 15
2002 SCMR1938


Secession Act (XXXIX of 1925)
Section 372 and 383 — succession certificate, grant/revocation of — limitation period — no statutory period of limitation was provided for grant of any succession certificate under section 372 or its revocation under section 383 of the succession Act 1925 but even then it had to be availed within reasonable time.
2018 SCMR 762

Pleader is entitled to appear for another and not for himself

Counsel and Client

Advocate and Pleader— Scope— Pleader is entitled to appear for another and not for himself—- If one wants to represent his/her client as advocate then he (advocate) is not legally entitled to examine himself in place of his party (client) as for such purpose he has to unclothe his status as advocate and has to clothe with attorney/authorized agent.

2017 CLC 1736

Negligence of counsel did not constitute sufficient cause

Negligence of counsel did not constitute sufficient cause 

Parties are bound by the acts and omissions of their counsel

in ase of any negligence on party of the counsel, parties could not claim that they were not to be held responsible.

Negligence on the party of advocate, has a binding effect on his client— any negligence on the party of the advocate, was binding upon party which had engaged the advocate— if pary would engage a counsel who was lacking sense of responsibility to the court, it was the party who should suffer and not the other side.

PLJ 2015 Islamabad 74

2013 YLR 375

2013 CLC 254

PLD 2006 Karachi 252

1974 SCMR 223



Will would be valid to the extent of 1/3 of the property.. testator could not bequest his entire property, however he could bequest only 1/3 of his entire property with the consent of legal heirs—property could not be bequest in the favor of legal heirs without the consent of other legal heirs— scribe of will deed in the present case, was not mentioned nor had been produced by the plaintiffs— contents of will deed were against Quranic Version, Sunnah and law—Muslim could exercise his right to utilize his property as he wishes in his lifetime by alienating the same in any manner but he had no right to by-pass the dictates of Quran, Sunnah and prevailing law— Testator had no authority to deprive the legal heirs of their shari shares though will deed— statements of marginal witnesses of will deed were full of contradictions— Notary public who attested the will deed had not entered the same in his register— Legal right which had bestowed upon the heirs could not be jeopardized by executing an unregistered deed which was no in the knowledge of legal heirs— consent of other legal heirs had not been obtained while executing the will deed—said will deed has not been proved nor the same contained the description or property—Legal rights of defendants to the extent of their Shari shares could not be disturbed—Inheritance mutation attested in accordance with law was not liable to be annulled which was maintained—plaintiffs were bound to prove partition deed  by producing cogent and confidence inspiring evidence— partition deed was unregistered documents which had not been proved— Temporary arrangement of partition for the purpose of produce of land would not amount to permanent private partition or a legal partition—Both the courts below had decided the this lis with conscious and application of independent mind=== revision was dismissed in the circumstances