Section 3 (2) Pursuant to the extent of the succession to the foregoing effect, the plaintiff's proprietary rules of prediction in the interest of the plaintiff died in the year 1910, and her legacy, according to customs, depended on her daughter but only on her marriage. It was denied that the property was transferred solely in favor of the defendants who was against the Shariat Mandate, as well as their share on the plaintiffs and the defendants. The Shariat Appellate Court did not consider this aspect of the case. And there was a rift in his judgment and decree. The law shall not have any obligation to keep a person in possession of the property because after the legal heir of the legal heir, he becomes the co-owner of the property and will be considered with the defendants because of customary law. There was no legal status of the change certified under the effect of the declaration of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Muslim Personal Law (Sharia) Application Act, 1935, which was retroactively considered to the plaintiff to be the death of a male Muslim owner in 1910. At the time of the suit the property was inherited and from then on it would be considered in the possession of the property. He will not be banned and has no knowledge of the transfer of property on the declaration of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Muslim Personal Law (Shariah) Application Act, 1935, and his right to inheritance has been established since 1910, It cannot be said that he was abducted. By its conduct, the principle of succession does not apply to the death of any Muslim and his property will automatically be consolidated into legal inheritance and at the same time there will be no need for the intervention of state agencies or revenue officials.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
