Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 112 of 1961‑62, decided on 31st March 1962, District Montgomery.

‑‑Right‑holders, dying before enforcement, of West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (IX of 1948)‑Inheritance‑‑Mutation.

Umar Daraz Ali v. Khurshid Ali P L D 1960 Lah. 834 rel. Hasan Ali for Appellant

Respondent in person.

This case relates to the inheritance of a refugee right‑holder who is alleged to have died in India before migration took place. The Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner both held that paragraph 46 of the Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme did not apply to this case as the right‑holder in the land had not migrated to Pakistan and was thus not a refugee and for that reason succession to his immovable property would be governed by Customary Law. This question has been gone into at considerable length by the learned Judges of the West Pakistan High Court in Umar Daraz Ali v. Khurshid Ali (1). They were pleased to observe as follows: ‑

"At first sight the argument has an appeal but when analysed it has no force. If the land in relation to which mutations of inheritance are sanctioned by the Rehabilitation Authorities under Resettlement Scheme were situated in Pakistan, then certainly the provisions of the Shariat Act or paragraphs 46 and 46 (a) of the Scheme could not be made applicable to them. That, however, is not the case for the estates left by the deceased right‑holders are situated in India over which the Rehabilitation and the Revenue Authorities of Pakistan had no jurisdiction. It was, therefore, not intended to determine the rights of the heirs of deceased right‑holders in the estates abandoned by them in India while deciding the impugned mutations. These mutations are in fact a measure to determine who shall be allotted land in Pakistan in lieu of the land abandoned by the deceased right‑holders . . . . . . . . . "

After discussing the various situations likely to arise the learned Judges held that the law of inheritance applicable to the estate of right‑holder who had died before the enforcement of the Shariat Act would be the provisions of paragraphs 46 and 46 (a) of the Resettlement Scheme as amended up‑to‑date. Following this decision I would hold that the provision of these two para graphs will govern succession in the present case. I would accordingly accept the revision petition set aside the orders passed by the officers below and direct that the mutation should be attested afresh in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 46 of Resettlement Scheme.

S. B.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.