đź‘‹ Welcome, visitor from Columbus, US!
Pakistan Law ReportsJudgments & Pakistani case law

Home › Legal Explainers › Succession & Inheritance

Can a Daughter Still Claim Her Inheritance If Brothers Mutate Property in Their Own Names?

Succession & Inheritance · 2026-09-30

In many Pakistani families, land inherited from a father is quietly transferred into the names of sons alone through a "mutation" in the revenue record, often leaving daughters unaware that they have been cut out. Pakistani courts have repeatedly dealt with such disputes, and their decisions offer useful guidance on whether a daughter can still recover her share even after such transfers.

What Pakistani courts have held

Dr. Aziz Ur Rehman and others V. Noor Bibi and others, CLC 2021 106 (Balochistan High Court) dealt with a daughter who sued her brothers and others, arguing that mutations and a claimed gift in the brothers' favour were illegal and that the property had later been sold to third parties without her consent. The trial court and appellate court both ruled in her favour, finding the alleged gift never proven, since mere transfer of possession does not make a gift valid. The High Court upheld this, holding that a legal heir's right to inherit does not expire with time because limitation does not apply to void transactions, that co-sharers cannot transfer more property than their own share, and that buyers from such co-sharers can only get rights in the sellers' share, not in the rightful heir's portion.

Bibi Shah Gul v. Saadia, CLC 2010 1440 (Balochistan High Court) involved a daughter, Saadia, who sued relatives after they allegedly mutated her late father's property into their own names, excluding her. Courts confirmed she was a legal heir entitled to half share, and a will favouring another relative was found forged. This finding was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court. When execution of the decree began, another heir objected to how the property was divided. The High Court dismissed her objections, holding that disputes about executing a decree must be resolved by the executing court itself, not through a fresh lawsuit, and that having failed to object earlier despite knowledge of the proceedings, her claim had no merit.

Mst. Sehat Bibi V. Bahar Khan and 2 others, CLC 2018 299 (Balochistan High Court) concerned a sister and brother who were the only surviving children of their father. The sister sued after discovering that her brother had mutated their father's land into his own name and then sold it, claiming the land had been gifted or willed to him. Lower courts had ruled against her, but the High Court overturned these decisions, finding the brother failed to prove any gift or will, produced no witnesses, and the mutation document did not even bear the father's signature. It held that both siblings were entitled to their proportionate shares and one heir cannot claim sole ownership through an unproven gift, ordering the brother to pay the sister her rightful share from the sale proceeds.

Rashida V. Ghous-Ud-Din and 8 others, CLC 2016 533 (Balochistan High Court) involved a woman whose attorney allegedly executed a "gift deed" transferring her inheritance share to her brother during ongoing litigation, without her knowledge. The High Court ruled in her favour, holding that a valid Islamic gift requires a clear offer, acceptance, and actual delivery of possession—none of which existed here. It also found her power of attorney did not specifically authorise gifting away her property, so the gift deed was fake and the resulting decree legally worthless. The court set aside the decree and ordered the property distributed among all legal heirs according to Islamic inheritance shares.

Ghous-Ud-Din V. Rashida and 3 others, YLR 2014 293 (Balochistan High Court) concerned two daughters who sued for their inheritance shares after their father's death, while other family members claimed the daughters had already gifted away their shares informally. There was no written document proving this, only oral testimony. Trial and appellate courts ruled in favour of the daughters, and the High Court upheld this, also noting that new construction built by the defendants on the disputed property created no additional rights for them since it was built without the co-heirs' permission.

Points to keep in mind

  • Courts have held that a mutation transferring property only into brothers' names does not by itself defeat a daughter's inheritance share, especially where no valid gift or will is proven.
  • Courts have held that claims of gift or will require solid evidence—written documents, proper witnesses, and proof of offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession—mere oral claims or unsigned mutation entries are not enough.
  • Courts have held that limitation does not apply to void transactions, meaning a daughter's right to inherit does not necessarily expire simply because time has passed since the mutation.
  • Courts have held that co-sharers cannot transfer more than their own share, so anyone buying from them only acquires rights in that share, not in the excluded heir's portion.
  • Courts have held that once a decree recognising an heir's share becomes final, disputes about how it is executed must generally be raised before the executing court itself, and delay in raising objections can weaken a claim.

Cases discussed

This article is general legal information based on published judgments. It is not legal advice, and outcomes depend on the facts of each case. For advice on your situation, consult a licensed advocate.