Lahore:
The High Court of Lahore (LHC) restored the inheritance tax of three sisters after 38 years, canceling a controversial tamleek (gift change) that their brother had used to deprive them fraudulently from their legitimate part on their father’s property.
Judge Malik Javed Iqbal Wains of the Mulan bench of the LHC judged that the transfer of Tamleek, executed on June 28, 1987, was not valid. The court rejected the affirmation of the respondent Abdul Sattar according to which their late father had offered him 33 Biggas and some lands marlas by “love and affection”.
Abdul Sattar argued that the transfer had been made while their father was in good health and that he had obtained the verbal consent of his sisters three to four months before the transaction. He also said that possession of the field had been issued to him at the time of the transfer.
Read: “The property can be gifted verbally”
However, the court found no written evidence of consent or testimony of independent witnesses to support the allegations of supply, acceptance or delivery of possession.
The judge’s professions observed that the justification provided – disinherit the girls out of love and to affection for the son – was “seriously questionable”. He added that even if the intention behind the tamleek was described as pious, “it is inconceivable to see how to deprive the girls of their inheritance mandated by Sharia law could be treated as an act of virtue”.
He also noted: “The Holy Quran unequivocally guarantees the rights of girls in the succession of their father. Any attempt to defeat this divine command by a doubtful transaction is not legally lasting. ”
The judge’s professions firmly criticized the contradictory conclusions of the Court of Appeal, noting that the Court of Appeal had itself affirmed in paragraph No. 9 of its judgment that the Court of First Instance had correctly noted the alleged Don.
Judge Malik Javed Iqbal Wains observed that the Court of Appeal initially judged that Abdul Sattar (defendant n ° 1) had not proven the essential elements of a valid gift (Tamleek), but then inexplicably reversed this conclusion to paragraph No. 10 by canceling the conclusions of the Court of First Instance on question No. 2, without providing new evidence or legal justification.
The Holy Quran unequivocally guarantees the rights of girls in the succession of their father. Any attempt to defeat this divine command through a dubious transaction is not legally lasting.
Judge Malik Javed Iqbal Wains
“This contradictory approach is manifestly untenable in law,” said the judge. “This is a regulated principle according to which once a court affirmed in a conclusive manner a factual conclusion on an important question – in particular concerning the validity of the main transaction – it cannot, without legal justification or convincing reasons, make a subsequent conclusion which directly denies its own previous conclusion.”
The judge judged that such an internal inconsistency was equivalent to “poor reading and non-reading of evidence”, which led to a miscarriage of justice which justified the intervention under the court of revision of the court.
Contested Tamleek
Judge Wains also noted that Sattar, even in his written declaration, did not specify the date, the time, the place or the witnesses for the alleged offer, acceptance and delivery of possession – the ingredients of the form of a valid tamleek.
“These fundamental omissions have a serious doubt about the authenticity of the alleged Tamleek and make the claim of the donor legally unbearable,” he said.
He added that the Court of Appeal had canceled the well -related conclusions of the court of first instance without awarding sound or convincing reasons. “The minor inconsistencies in the proofs of the petitioner do not prevail over the defendant’s complete failure to prove the fundamental ingredients of a valid donation,” concluded the judge.
Find out more: Women are locked in succession allegations
According to the petition, the parties are legal heirs of Ashraf Ali (deceased). The petitioner, Rasheedan, with Shakoori and Shakila, alleged that their brother, Abdul Sattar, fraudulently executed the transfer of Tamleek n ° 1874 on June 28, 1987, during their father’s illness, to deprive them of their legal and Islamic heritage.
The applicant said Ashraf Ali was paralyzed and unable to speak, hear or walk at the time. He also allegedly alleged that the transfer had been attested with the connivance of income officials, using a false impression of thumbs on the Rapat Roznamcha Waqaiti – an entry into the daily newspaper of events held by the Patwari to maintain the recordings of notable incidents on land affairs including natural disasters, transactions concerning land, mutations, more.
The court of first instance initially ruled in favor of the sisters, but the Court of Appeal subsequently canceled this decision and ruled in favor of Abdul Sattar.
The sisters then called on the LHC, which restored the conclusions of the court of first instance, said the emptiness of the transfer of Tamleek and restored the part of the sisters in the inheritance.
