PLJ 2022 Quetta 162
Present : ABDULLAH BALOCH , J.
ABDUL GHAFFAR --Petitioner
versus
FAIZI BIBI (Widow) and others --Respondents
C.R. No. 288 of 2020, decided on 6- 12.2021.
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877) --
----S. 42--Suit for declaration --Deceased was employee in Balochistan Traffic Police--Obtaining
of succession certificate-- Non-impleadment of petitioner as party --Compensation amount --Suit
was decreed --Appeal was allowed --Deceased was issue less --Death due strike by a vehicle --
Question of whether amount of compensation, grant in aid pertains to Tarka left by dceased or
otherwise and legal heirs deceased are entitled to receive Tarka of in one able and moveable property left by deceased --Challenge to --Parameters of tarka --Amount of compensation does not
fall within parameters of Tarka thus, no one can claim same as matter of legitimate right and
impugned judgment passed by appellate Court is well reasoning does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity to warrant interference by Courts --Revision petition dismissed.
[P. 167] A
PLD 1991 SC 731, PLD 1991 SC 750 & 2014 YLR 1553 ref.
Syed Manzoor Ahmed Shah and Mr. Mubasshir Hussan, Advocates for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Umar Doger , Advocate for Respondents.
Mr. Saifullah Sanjarani , Assistant A.G for State.
Date of hearing: 23.11.2021.
J
UDGMENT
This petition is directed against the judgment & decree dated 6th August 2020 (“the impugned
judgment & decree”) passed by the learned Additional District Judge -VII, Quetta (“the
appellate Court”) whereby appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the judgment &
decree dated 31st March 2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge -I, Quetta (“the trial
Court”) was set aside.
Brief facts arising out from the instant petition are that petitioner/plaintiff and Respondent Nos. 1
to 3 are the legal heirs of late Din Muhammad, who was employee in Balochistan Traffic Police and died on 6
th September 2010 due to strike by a vehicle near Airport Road Quetta. While on
14th February 2011 the respondents/ defendants obtained Succession Certificate without
impleading the petitioner/plaintiff as legal heir in the Succession Application. Besides, the Government of Balochistan announced compensation amount of Rs. 20,00,000/ -for the legal
heirs of deceased Din Muhammad. Thus, the petitioner/plaintiff being real brother of deceased is also entitled
to receive his respective share from the compensatory amount
Rs. 20,00,000/ -.
3. The suit of the plaintiff/petitioner was contested by the defendants/respondents by means of
filing written statement. After framing issues and recording evidence, the suit of plaintiff/petitioner was decreed in his favour; vide impugned judgment & decree dated 31st
March 2018.
4. Being aggrieved the respondents/appellants assailed the judgment & decree passed by the learned trial Court before the learned appellate Court by filing appeal, which was allowed, vide
impugned judgment & decree as mentioned hereinabove in Para No. 1; whereby the judgment & decree passed by the learned trial Court was set aside. Whereafter the petitioner filed the instant Civil Revision Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely, which reveals that the petitioner mainly filed the suit for receiving his share from the compensation amount awarded for his deceased brother, who being police personnel was martyred issueless during the course of service. As the Government of Balochistan declared the late Din Muhammad as Shaheed and announced
Rs. 20,00,000/ -for his legal heirs. Since the deceased was issueless, thus his mother and two
brothers obtained succession certificate in pursuance whereof received the said compensation amount.
6. Now question arises whether the amount of compensation, grant in aid pertains to Tarka left
by the deceased Din Muhammad or otherwise and the legal heirs of deceased are entitled to
receive Tarka of immoveable and moveable property left by the deceased. With regard to Tarka
the Hon’ble Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan passed an exhaustive landmark judgment; wherein provided guidelines for matters pertaining to Tarka . Reliance in
this regard is placed on the case of “Wafaqi Hakoomat -e-Pakistan v. Awamunnas , PLD 1991 SC
731 held as under:
" ﮐہ ﮐﺴﯽ ﻣﺮﻧﮯ واﻟﮯ ﮐﮯ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ وراﺛﺖ ﺗﺮ ﮐﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﻨﯿﺎدی اﮨﻤﯿﺖ اس ﺑﺎت ﮐﻮ ھﮯ ﮐہ وه ﯾﺎ ﺗﻮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ
اﯾﺴﺎﻣﺎل ھﻮ، ﺟﻮ ﻣﺮﺗﮯ وﻗﺖ اﺳﮑﯽ ﻣﻠﮑﯿﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﮭﺎ ، ﯾﺎ ﻣﺮ ﺣﻮم ﮐﺎ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ اﯾﺴﺎﻣﺎﻟﯽ ﺣﻖ ھﻮ ﺟﻮ اﺳﮑﯽ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ
ھﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ واﺟﺐ اﻻداھﻮ ﮔﯿﺎ ھﻮ ، اور وه اﭘﻨﯽ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﺴﯽ وﻗﺖ اس ﮐﺎ ﻻزﻣﯽ طﻮر ﭘﺮ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒہ ﮐﺮ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ
ھﻮ ، اﮔﺮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﭼﯿﺰ ﻣﺮﺗﮯ وﻗﺖ ﻣﺮﻧﮯ واﻟﮯ ﮐﯽ ﻣﻠﮑﯿﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ھﮯ ، ﯾﺎ دوﺳﺮے ﮐﮯ ذﻣہ اس ﮐﺎ اﯾﺴﺎ
ﻻزﻣﯽ ﺣﻖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ھﮯ ، ﺟﺲ ﮐﺎ وه اﭘﻨﯽ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻻزﻣﯽ طﻮر ﭘﺮ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒہ ﮐﺮ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ھﻮ ، ﺗﻮ اس ﮐﻮ ﺗﺮ ﮐﮯ
ﻣﯿﮟ ﺷﻤﺎر ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ۔ "
Likewise, the same view was also taken by the Hon’ble Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme
Court of Pakistan in case of PLD 1991 SC 750 wherein held as under:
" ﻓﺎﺿﻞ ﻓﯿﮉرل ﺷﺮﯾﻌﺖ ﮐﻮرٹ ﮐﮯ اس ﻣﺆﻗﻒ ﮐﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﺰه ﻟﯿﻨﮯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ ﺑﻨﯿﺎدی ﻣﺴﺌﻠہ ﯾہ طﮯ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﮨﻮ ﮔﺎ ﮐہ
ﺟﻮ ﻣﻌﺎوﺿہ ان ﻗﻮاﻧﯿﻦ ﮐﮯ ﺗﺤﺖ دﯾﺎ ﺟﺎرھﺎھﮯ ، ﮐﯿﺎ وه وﻓﺎت ﭘﺎﻧﮯ واﻟﮯ ﮐﺎ ﺗﺮﮐہ ھﮯ ؟ ﺟﻮ اس ﮐﮯ ﺗﻤﺎم
ﮨﮯ؟ ﯾﺎ اﯾﮏ ﻋﻄﯿہ ﺋﮯ ورﺛﺎء ﻣﯿﮟ ﻻزﻣﯽ طﻮر ﭘﺮ ﺗﻘﺴﯿﻢ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎ ، ﺟﺲ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﯿﺮاث ﮐﮯ اﺣﮑﺎم ﮐﯽ رﻋﺎﯾﺖ
ﺿﺮوری ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ؟ ﮨﻢ اﭘﻨﮯ اﯾﮏ ﺣﺎﻟﯿہ ﻓﯿﺼﻠﮯ ) ﻓﯿﮉرﯾﺸﻦ آف ﭘﺎﮐﺴﺘﺎن ﺑﻨﺎم ﻋﻮام ﭘﺎﮐﺴﺘﺎن ﺷﺮﯾﻌﺖ اﭘﯿﻞ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ 3
در 1989 (] ﭘﯽ اﯾﻞ ڈی 1991 ء اﯾﺲ ﺳﯽ731[ ﻣﯿﮟ اس ﻣﺴﺌﻠہ ﭘﺮ ﺗﻔﺼﯿﻞ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮭ ﺑﺤﺚ ﮐﺮ ﭼﮑﮯ ﮨﯿﮟﮐہ
ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﯿﺮاث ﺗﺮﮐﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﺮﯾﻒ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ؟ اور ﮐﻮن ﮐﻮن ﺳﯽ ﭼﯿﺰﯾﮟ اس ﻣﯿﮟ داﺧﻞ ھﻮﺗﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ ؟ اس ﻣﻘﺪﻣہ ﻣﯿﮟ
ﮨﻢ ﯾہ ﻗﺮار دے ﭼﮑﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐہ ﺗﺮ ﮐہ اس ﻣﺎل ﮐﻮ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ھﮯ ﺟﻮ ﯾﺎ ﺗﻮ ﻣﺮﺗﮯ وﻗﺖ ﻣﺮﻧﮯ واﻟﮯ ﮐﯽ ﻣﻠﮑﯿﺖ
ﻣﯿﮟ ھﻮ ، ﯾﺎ ﮐﺴﯽ دوﺳﺮے ﺷﺨﺺ ﮐﮯ ذﻣﮯ اس طﺮح واﺟﺐ ھﻮ ﮐہ وه اﭘﻨﯽ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﮨﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ اﺳﮑﺎ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒہ
ﮐﺮ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ھﻮ ، اس اﺻﻮل ﮐﮯ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﮨﻢ ﻧﮯ ﯾہ ﻗﺮار دﯾﺎ ھﮯ ﮐہ ﺑﯿﻨﻮوﻟﻨﭧ ﻓﻨﮉ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻠﻨﮯ واﻟﯽ رﻗﻢ ﺟﻮ
ﻣﻼزم ﮐﯽ وﻓﺎت ﮐﮯ ﺑﻌﺪ اس ﮐﮯ اﮨﻞ ﺧﺎﻧﺪان ﮐﻮ دی ﺟﺎﺗﯽ ھﮯ ، ﻣﻼزم ﮐﺎ ﺗﺮﮐہ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ھﮯ ، اﺳﯽ طﺮح
ﮔﺮوپ اﻧﺸﻮرﻧﺲ ﮐﯽ رﻗﻢ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺟﻮ ﻣﺮ ﻧﮯواﻟﮯ ﻣﻼزم ﮐﮯ اﮨﻞ ﺧﺎﻧﺪان ﮐﻮ دی ﺟﺎﺗﯽ ھﮯ ، وه ﺑﮭﯽ ﻣﺮﻧﮯ
واﻟﮯ ﮐﮯ ﺗﺮﮐﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ھﮯ ۔ ﺗﻤﺎم ورﺛﺎء اور ان دوﻧﻮں رﻗﻤﻮں ﮐﺎ ﻣﯿﺮاث ﮐﮯ اﺻﻮل ﮐﮯ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ
ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻘﺴﯿﻢ ﮐﺮ ﻧﺎﺿﺮوری ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ، ﺣﺎﻻﻧﮑہ ان دوﻧﻮں ﻓﻨﮉز ﻣﯿﮟ ﺧﻮد ﻣﻼزم ﮐﺎ ﭼﻨﺪه ﺑﮭﯽ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ھﻮﺗﺎ ھﮯ ، زﯾﺮ
ﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﻮاﻧﯿﻦ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﻮ ﻣﻌﺎوﺿہ دﯾﺎ ﺟﺎرﮨﺎ ﮨﮯ ، اس ﮐﻮ ﺑﮭﯽ اس اﺻﻮل ﮐﮯ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ وﻓﺎت ﭘﺎﻧﮯ واﻟﮯ ﮐﺎ ﺗﺮﮐہ
ﻗﺮار ﻧﮩﯿﮟ دﯾﺎ ﺟﺎﺳﮑﺘﺎ، ﮐﯿﻮﻧﮑہ ﻣﺮﺗﮯ وﻗﺖ ﯾہ رﻗﻢ ﻧہ ﺗﻮا ﺳﮑﯽ ﻣﻠﮑﯿﺖ ﺗﮭﯽ اور ﻧہ اس ﮐﺎ اﯾﺴﺎﻣﺎﻟﯽ ﺣﻖ ﺗﮭﺎ
ﺟﻮ ﻻزﻣﺎ اﭘﻨﯽ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ وه ﮐﺴﯽ وﻗﺖ وﺻﻮل ﮐﺮ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ۔
ﺟﮩﺎں ﺗﮏ اس ﻣﻌﺎوﺿہ ﮐﻮ دﯾﺖ ﭘﺮ ﻗﯿﺎس ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﮐﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ ھﮯ ، اس ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎرے ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﻢ ﻧﮯ اﭘﻨﮯ ﻣﺬﮐﻮره
ﻓﯿﺼﻠﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﯾہ ﻗﺮار دے ﭼﮑﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐہ ﯾہ ﻗﯿﺎس درﺳﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ، ﮐﯿﻮﻧﮑہ اول ﺗﻮ دﯾﺖ ﻗﺼﺎص ﮐﮯ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﻘﺎم
ھﻮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ، اور ﻗﺼﺎص ﮐﮯ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﭼﻮﻧﮑہ ورﺛﺎء ﮨﯿﮟ ، ﻟﮩﺬادﯾﺖ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﺑﮭﯽ وھﯽ ھﻮﻧﮕﮯ ،
دوﺳﺮے دﯾﺖ اﯾﮏ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺣﻖ ھﮯ ، ﺟﺲ ﮐﺎ ادا ﮐﺮ ﻧﺎﺷﺮ ﻋﯽ اﻋﺘﺒﺎر ﺳﮯ ﻗﺎﺗﻞ ﮐﮯ زﻣہ ﻻزم ھﮯ ، اور
ﺷﺮﯾﻌﺖ ﮨﯽ ﻧﮯ ﺻﺮاﺣﺘﺎ " ﯾہ طﮯ ﮐﺮ دﯾﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐہ دو ﻣﻘﺘﻮل ﮐﮯ ورﺛﺎء ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻘﺴﯿﻢ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺋﯿﮕﯽ ، ﻟﯿﮑﻦ زﯾﺮ
ﺑﺤﺚ ﻧہ ﺗﻮ ﻗﺼﺎص ﮐﺎ ﺑﺪل ھﮯ ، اور ﻧہ ﺷﺮﻋﺎ ﺣﮑﻮﻣﺖ ﭘﺮ واﺟﺐ ﺗﮭﺎ ﮐہ وه وﻓﺎت ﯾﺎﻓﺘہ ﺷﺨﺺ ﮐﻮ ﯾہ
ﻣﻌﺎوﺿہ ادا ﮐﺮے ، اﮔﺮ اس ﻗﺴﻢ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻌﺎوﺿہ ادا ﮐﺮ ﻧﮯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﻧہ ﺑﻨﺎﯾﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ، ﺗﻮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﯾہ
ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﮩہ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ ﮐہ ﺣﮑﻮﻣﺖ ﻧﮯ اﭘﻨﮯ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﻓﺮﯾﻀﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﻮﺗﺎﮨﯽ ﮐﯽ ﮨﮯ ، ﻟﮩﺬا ﯾہ ﻣﻌﺎوﺿہ در
ﺣﻘﯿﻘﺖ ﺣﮑﻮﻣﺖ ﮐﯽ طﺮف ﺳﮯ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻘہ اﻓﺮاد ﮐﯽ ﺧﺪﻣﺎت ﮐﮯ طﻮر ﭘﺮ اﯾﮏ ﮨﻤﺪردی ھﮯ ، ﺟﻮ وﻓﺎت ﭘﺎﻧﮯ
ﺳﻨﺖ ﻧﮯ ﯾہ ﻻزم ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮐہ ﮨﻤﺪ ردی ﮐﺮﻧﮯ واﻻ ھﺮ ﺻﻮرت ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻤﺎم ورﺛﺎء ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮭ ﮨﻤﺪردی ﮐﺮے ، واﻟﮯ ﺷﺨﺺ ﮐﮯ اھﻞ ﺧﺎﻧﺪان ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮭ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎرھﯽ ﮨﮯ ، اوار اﯾﺴﯽ ﮨﻤﺪ روی ﮐﯽ ﺻﻮرت ﻣﯿﮟ ﻗﺮآن و
ﺑﮭﯽ رﮨﻨﻤﺎﺋﯽ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺳﮑﺘﯽ ھﮯ ﺟﻮ ﺧﻮد ﻓﯿﮉرل ﺷﺮﯾﻌﺖ ﮐﻮرٹ ﮐﮯ ﻓﯿﺼﻠﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﯽ ﮔﺌﯽ ھﮯ ۔ ﺑﻠﮑہ اﺳﮯ اﺧﺘﯿﺎر ھﮯ ﮐہ ﺟﺴﮯ ﭼﺎﮨﮯ اﭘﻨﮯ ﻋﻄﯿﮯ ﮐﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﮢﮭﺮا ﺋﮯ، اس ﺳﻠﺴﻠﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ اس ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﺳﮯ
ﺳﺮﮐﺎر دوﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﷺ ﻧﮯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ:
ۓ"ﺟﻮ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎن ﺑﮭﯽ وﻓﺎت ﭘﺎ ﺋﮯ ، اور ﮐﭽﮭ ﻣﺎل ﭼﮭﻮڑ ﮐﺮ ﺟﺎ ﺗﻮ اس ﮐﮯ ﻋﺼﺒﺎت ) ورﺛﺎء ( اس ﮐﮯ
وارث ھﻮﻧﮕﮯ ، ﺧﻮاه وه ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ھﻮں ، اور ﺟﻮ ﺷﺨﺺ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻗﺮﺿہ ﭼﮭﻮڑ ﮐﺮ ﺟﺎ ﺋﮯ، ﯾﺎ زﯾﺮ ﮐﻔﺎﻟﺖ
ۓﻋﯿﺎل ﭼﮭﻮڑ ﮐﺮ ﺟﺎ ، ) ﺟﻮ ﻣﺤﺘﺎج ﮨﻮں ( ﺗﻮ وه ﻣﯿﺮے ﭘﺎس آ ﺟﺎﺋﯿﮟ ، ﻣﯿﮟ ان ﮐﺎ ﮐﻔﯿﻞ ھﻮ ﻧﮕﺎ ۔ "
اس ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻣﯿﮟ آﻧﺤﻀﺮت ﷺ ﻧﮯ اﯾﮏ طﺮف ﺗﻮ ﯾہ اﺻﻮل ﺑﯿﺎن ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ﮐہ ﺗﺮﮐہ ﺗﻤﺎم ورﺛﺎء ﮐﺎ ﺣﻖ ھﮯ ، اور
ۓدوﺳﺮی طﺮف ﯾہ ﺑﮭﯽ اﻋﻼن ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ﮐہ اﮔﺮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺷﺨﺺ اﺗﻨﺎﻣﺎل ﭼﮭﻮڑ ﮐﺮ ﻧہ ﺟﺎ ﺟﻮ اس ﮐﮯ زﯾﺮ ﮐﻔﺎﻟﺖ
ﺣﺎﺟﺖ ﮐﯽ ﺑﻨﯿﺎد ﭘﺮ ﺗﮭﺎ ، ﻧہ ﮐہ ﻣﯿﺮاث ﮐﮯ اﺻﻮل ﭘﺮ ، ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽہ آﻧﺤﻀﺮت ﷺ ﮐﻮ اﺧﺘﯿﺎر ﺗﮭﺎ ﮐہ اس اﻋﻼن ﮐﻔﺎﻟﺖ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ آﻧﺤﻀﺮت ﷺ ﻧﮯ ﺟﻮ ﻋﻄﯿہ ﮐﺴﯽ ﮐﻮ دﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﺎ اﻋﻼن ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ، وه اس ﮐﯽ ﺿﺮورت اور اﻓﺮاد ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ ﮐﺎﻓﯽ ﮨﻮ ﺗﻮ آپ اس ﮐﮯ ﻣﺤﺘﺎج اھﻞ و ﻋﯿﺎل ﮐﯽ ﺧﻮد ﮐﻔﺎﻟﺖ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺋﻨﮕﮯ ۔ ظﺎھﺮ ھﮯ ﮐہ اس
ﮐﮯ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ آپ ﻣﺮﻧﮯ واﻟﮯ ﮐﮯ ﺧﺎﻧﺪان ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﺟﺴﮑﻮ زﯾﺎده ﺿﺮورت ﻣﻨﺪ ﭘﺎﺋﯿﮟ ، اس ﮐﻮ ﯾہ ﻋﻄﯿہ دﯾﮟ ،
آپ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﯿﮯ ﯾہ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺿﺮوری ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺗﮭﺎ ﮐہ ﯾہ ﻋﻄﯿہ ﻣﺮﻧﮯ واﻟﮯ ﮐﮯ ﺗﻤﺎم ورﺛﺎء ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻘﺴﯿﻢ ﮐﺮ ﯾﮟ ،
ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽہ آپ ﻧﮯ اس ﻋﻄﯿہ ﮐﻮ ﺗﺮﮐہ ﮐﺎ ﺣﺼہ ﻗﺮار ﻧﮩﯿﮟ دﯾﺎ ، ﺑﻠﮑہ ﺗﺮﮐہ ﮐﺎذﮐﺮ ﭘﮩﻠﮯ ﺟﻤﻠﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ اﻟﮓ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ
ﮨﮯ ﮐہ اﮔﺮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺷﺨﺺ ﮐﺴﯽ ﮐﯽ وﻓﺎت ﮐﯽ ﺻﻮرت ﻣﯿﮟ اس ﮐﮯ ﭘﺴﻤﺎﻧﺪﮔﺎن ﮐﻮ ان ﮐﮯ ﻧﻘﺼﺎن ﮐﯽ ﺗﻼﻓﯽ ﮐﮯ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺻﺮف اھﻞ و ﻋﯿﺎل ﮐﻮ دﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﺎ ذﮐﺮ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ، ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽہ اس ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﺳﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ اس ﺑﺎت ﮐﯽ ﺗﺎﺋﯿﺪ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ
اور ﮨﻤﺪردی ﮐﮯ طﻮر ﭘﺮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ رﻗﻢ ادا ﮐﺮے ، ﺗﻮ اس ﮐﮯ ذﻣہ ﻣﯿﺮاث ﮐﮯ اﺣﮑﺎم ﮐﯽ رﻋﺎﯾﺖ ﺷﺮﻋﺎ ًﻻزم
ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ھﮯ ، ﺑﻠﮑہ وه اﭘﻨﯽ ﺻﻮاﺑﺪﯾﺪ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺟﺲ ﮐﻮ ﭼﺎھﮯ ﯾہ رﻗﻢ دے ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ھﮯ ۔
زﯾﺮ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﻮاﻧﯿﻦ ﮐﺎ اﺻﻞ ﻣﻨﺸﺎ ﯾہ ھﮯ ﮐہ ﻣﺬﮐﻮره اﻓﺮاد ﮐﮯ ﺣﺎدﺛﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ وﻓﺎت ﭘﺎ ﺟﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺻﻮرت ﻣﯿﮟ
ﺋﮯ اس ﮐﮯ اﻋﺰاز ﮐﮯ طﻮر ﭘﺮ اس ﮐﮯ ان اھﻞ ﺧﺎﻧﺪان ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮭ ﮨﻤﺪردی ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎ ﺟﻮ ﺑﺮ اء ر اﺳﺖ اس ﮐﮯ
زﯾﺮ ﮐﻔﺎﻟﺖ ﮨﯿﮟ ، اﻟﺒﺘہ ﭼﻮﻧﮑہ ھﺮ ﺷﺨﺺ ﮐﮯ ﺧﺎﻧﺪاﻧﯽ ﺣﺎﻻت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﮨﻮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ، اور ﺧﺎﻧﺪان ﺳﮯ ﺑﺎھﺮ
ﮐﺴﯽ ﻓﺮد ﮐﮯﻟﺌﮯ ﯾہ ﭘﺘہ ﻟﮕﺎﻧﺎﺑﺴﺎاو ﻗﺎت دﺷﻮار ھﻮﺗﺎ ھﮯ ﮐہ اس ﻗﺴﻢ ﮐﯽ ﮨﻤﺪردی ﮐﺎ زﯾﺎده ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﮐﻮن ھﮯ
ﺑﺎرے ﻣﯿﮟ ﯾہ ﮐﮩﻨﺎ درﺳﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐہ ﯾہ وﻓﺎت ﭘﺎﻧﮯ واﻟﮯ ﺷﺨﺺ ﮐﯽ طﺮف ﺳﮯ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ وﺻﯿﺖ ﮨﮯ ، اور اس ھﮯ وه ﺟﺲ ﺷﺨﺺ ﯾﺎ اﺷﺨﺎ ص ﮐﺎ ﺗﻌﯿﻦ ﮐﺮ دے اس ﮐﻮ ﯾہ ﻣﻌﺎوﺿہ ادا ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﯿﮕﺎ اس ﺗﻌﯿﻦ ﯾﺎ ﻧﺎﻣﺰدﮔﯽ ﮐﮯ ؟ اس ﻟﺌﮯ اس ﻣﻌﺎوﺿﮯ ﮐﯽ وﺻﻮﻟﯽ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ اﻓﺮاد ﮐﺎ ﺗﻌﯿﻦ ﺧﻮد ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻘہ ﺷﺨﺺ ﮐﮯ ﺣﻮاﻟﮯ ﮐﺮ دﯾﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ
ﭘﺮ وﺻﯿﺖ ﮐﮯ اﺣﮑﺎم ﻻﮔﻮ ﮨﻮﻧﮕﮯ ﮐﯿﻮﻧﮑہ وﺻﯿﺖ ﺧﻮد اﭘﻨﯽ ﻣﻤﻠﻮﮐہ اﺷﯿﺎء اور ﺗﺮﮐہ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎرے ﻣﯿﮟ ھﻮﺗﯽ
ھﮯ ، اور ﮨﻢ ﭘﮩﻠﮯ ﯾہ ﻗﺮار دے ﭼﮑﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐہ ﯾہ ﻣﻌﺎوﺿہ ﺗﺮ ﮐﮯ ﮐﺎ ﺣﺼہ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ۔
Following the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court the
Hon’ble Lahore High Court in its Judgment in the case of “Dr. Safdar Hussain and another v. Flt. Lt. Nadia Latif and others, 2014 YLR 1553”, held as under:
“8. Tarka/estate of the deceased consists of the immovable or movable properties,
moneys and all other articles which he owned and over which he had complete control
and dominion so as to enter into the transaction of sale, exchange, transfer, gift in
respect of such immovable and movable properties, moneys and other goods/articles. In
the light of above, it is settled that an amount which has accrued to an employee during
his lifetime, whether he has received the same or not before his death, shall become part
of the estate of the deceased and such amount had to be distributed among the legal heirs
of the employee, as per the Personnel Law of the employee, after his death. In case an
amount has accrued after his death then it is required to be seen, in the light of
interpretation given by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
whether the said amount falls in the category of Tarka/estate of the deceased or not. If
the amount accrued is a “grant” or “concession” then the same will be payable to the
nominee of the deceased, irrespective of the fact that the Personnel Law of the deceased
states otherwise.
9. The amount of Group Welfare Scheme could not be claimed by the deceased during his
lifetime nor the deceased could, ask Respondent No. 6 for payment under the said head which would go to establish that deceased had power or authority to possess or claim any amount under the aforesaid head during his lifetime. This amount would have become due and payable to the deceased only after his death.”
Thus, in view of the judgments of Hon’ble apex Courts the amount of compensation does not fall within the parameters of Tarka thus, no one can claim the same as matter of legitimate right and
impugned judgment passed by learned appellate Court is well reasoning does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity to warrant interference by the Courts.
For the reasons, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed with no order as to cost.
(Y.A.) Revision petition dismissedThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.