Saeed Ahmed and another V. Mst Anwar Sultana and 4 others,
PLD 2017 Balochistan 85 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved a family dispute over inheritance. Dr. Muhammad Abu Amar, who had married three times and had multiple children, died in 2008 leaving behind houses, a vehicle, and pension benefits. Some of his children and a widow (the plaintiffs) sued other family members (the defendants), claiming that the properties had been fraudulently transferred into the defendants' names through revenue record entries, rather than being genuinely gifted as the defendants claimed.
The trial court had dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, but the Balochistan High Court overturned that decision on appeal. The court found that the plaintiffs' evidence, while not directly documenting property details, was more credible than the defendants' claim of a lifetime gift. It noted inconsistencies in the documents used to transfer property, including mismatched thumb impressions and missing signatures, and pointed out that the predecessor had reportedly been paralyzed and unable to sign documents around the time the transfers occurred. Witnesses for the defendants also admitted, under cross-examination, that all legal heirs were entitled to a share of the inheritance.
The High Court concluded that the property had likely been transferred unlawfully, with the involvement of revenue officials, and that it should instead be divided among all legal heirs according to Islamic inheritance law (Sharia). The court set aside the trial court's judgment, allowed the appeal, and directed revenue authorities to update records to reflect each heir's rightful share. This case highlights how courts scrutinize suspicious property transfers within
یہ مقدمہ وراثت کے حوالے سے ایک خاندانی تنازع پر مبنی تھا۔ ڈاکٹر محمد ابو عمر، جنہوں نے تین شادیاں کی تھیں اور جن کی متعدد اولادیں تھیں، 2008 میں انتقال کر گئے اور پیچھے مکانات، ایک گاڑی اور پنشن کے فوائد چھوڑے۔ ان کے کچھ بچوں اور ایک بیوہ (مدعیان) نے خاندان کے دیگر افراد (مدعا علیہان) کے خلاف دعویٰ دائر کیا، جس میں یہ الزام لگایا گیا کہ جائیدادیں فراڈ کے ذریعے، محصولات کے ریکارڈ میں اندراجات کے ذریعے مدعا علیہان کے نام منتقل کی گئی تھیں، نہ کہ حقیقی طور پر ہبہ کی گئی تھیں جیسا کہ مدعا علیہان کا دعویٰ تھا۔
ٹرائل کورٹ نے مدعیان کا دعویٰ خارج کر دیا تھا، لیکن بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے اپیل پر اس فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا۔ عدالت نے پایا کہ اگرچہ مدعیان کے شواہد میں جائیداد کی تفصیلات کی براہ راست دستاویزی تصدیق موجود نہیں تھی، تاہم یہ مدعا علیہان کے زند