Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Facts of the Case
- Genealogy and Inheritance Claims
- Property Transactions and Third-Party Interests
- Arguments of the Appellants
- Right of Inheritance and Limitation Law
- Allegations of Fraud
- Arguments of the Respondents
- Bar of Limitation
- Third-Party Rights
- Court’s Observations and Findings
- Inheritance Rights vs. Limitation
- Constructive vs. Actual Denial of Rights
- Impact of Third-Party Transactions
- Legal Precedents Cited
- Conclusion and Judgment
1. Introduction
This appeal challenges the concurrent findings of three lower courts regarding the inheritance claim of Khaleelullah and others.
2. Facts of the Case
Genealogy and Inheritance Claims
Qaim Khan, son of Adam Khan, had three sons: Muhaim Khan, Mehrullah, and Habibullah. The appellants, great-grandchildren of Qaim Khan, claim inheritance through Mst. Khanzadi, daughter of Mehrullah, who passed away about 30 years prior to the filing of the suit.
Property Transactions and Third-Party Interests
Transactions involving the disputed property began over 60 years ago. Key sales include:
- Mouza Bostan: Sold to Jalal Khan and Huzoor Bakhsh.
- Mouza Chacher Tappa Talli: Sold to Muhammad Hashim and Sharbat Khan.
The appellants did not implead all third-party purchasers in their suit.
3. Arguments of the Appellants
Right of Inheritance and Limitation Law
The appellants argue that inheritance rights under Islamic law are not bound by limitation. They contend that the property was fraudulently transferred, excluding Mst. Khanzadi from the Shajra Nasab. They cite multiple cases supporting their claim.
Allegations of Fraud
They assert fraud by the respondents, which allegedly delayed their knowledge of the deprivation.
4. Arguments of the Respondents
Bar of Limitation
The respondents argue that the appellants’ claim is time-barred. They highlight the long lapse since Qaim Khan’s death and the lack of action by Mehrullah and Mst. Khanzadi during their lifetimes.
Third-Party Rights
Respondents stress the creation of third-party interests, which complicates any claim.
5. Court’s Observations and Findings
Inheritance Rights vs. Limitation
The court emphasized that legal heirs must act promptly. Constructive possession by one heir does not exempt others from the limitation period once third-party rights are involved.
Constructive vs. Actual Denial of Rights
A clear distinction exists between threatened denial (mere revenue entries) and actual denial (property transfer). The latter starts the limitation period.
Impact of Third-Party Transactions
Since third-party interests were created decades ago, disturbing these transactions is legally untenable.
6. Legal Precedents Cited
Key cases include:
- Noor Din v. Pervaiz Akhtar (2023 SCMR 1928)
- Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLD 2022 SC 353)
- Mst. Rabia Gula v. Muhammad Janan (2022 SCMR 1009)
These cases underscore the importance of timely action and the limitations on retrospective claims when third-party rights are involved.
7. Conclusion and Judgment
The appeal is dismissed. The courts found the claim time-barred, and no exceptional circumstances justified interference with the concurrent lower court decisions.