IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE SHAHID WAHEED 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 2658 OF 2019 
(Against the judgment dated 04.04.2019 
of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, 
Multan passed in C.R.No.753-D/2009) 
 
 
Shahray Khan (decd.) through LRs etc. 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Qadir Bakhsh (decd.) through LRs etc. 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Zulfikar Khalid Maluka, ASC 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Not represented 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
17.11.2022 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition under 
Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the 
petitioners have called in question the vires of judgment dated 04.04.2019 
passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby the Civil 
Revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the orders of the 
learned two Courts below were upheld.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that one Miran 
Khan was owner in possession of a piece of agricultural land measuring 
532 kanals 7 marlas situated in Tehsil Mailsi, District Multan. The said 
Miran died issueless in the year 1929. The suit property was mutated in 
favour of his wife Mst. Aisha, his widow, vide mutation No. 51 attested on 
14.02.1929 as a lifetime owner having no right to further alienate the 
property. However, Mst. Aisha further transferred the said property in 
favour of her relatives i.e. brothers, cousins and nephews vide mutation 
CIVIL PETITION NO.2658 OF 2019 
 
-: 2 :-
No. 59 dated 31.10.1931 on the pretext that she had to pay a loan of her 
husband, which was satisfied by them. This led to filing of a civil suit by the 
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents namely Qadir Bakhsh claiming 
himself to be the collateral/reversioner of Miran Khan on the ground that 
it was a life estate and Mst. Aisha had no authority to further alienate the 
property. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 
02.01.1940. After the promulgation of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law 
(Shariat) Application Act, 1962, the limited ownership of Mst. Aisha ceased 
to have effect. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 
Qadir Bakhsh filed yet another civil suit claiming ownership in the estate of 
Miran Khan to the extent of 3/4th share as collateral/reversioner. The suit 
was initially filed against Mst. Aisha but subsequently, her relatives being 
transferees of the land were also impleaded as defendants. Two real 
sisters of Miran Khan namely Mst. Lakhan and Mst. Azmat were also 
impleaded in the suit on 30.01.1978 & 29.10.1980 respectively. The suit 
filed by Qadir Bakhsh was contested by the defendants. Ultimately vide 
judgment dated 17.06.1981, the learned Trial Court while dismissing the 
suit concluded that deceased Miran Khan was survived by his widow Mst. 
Aisha Bibi, his mother Mst. Jannat and two sisters namely Mst. Lakhan and 
Mst. Azmat, therefore, his estate devolved upon the said sharers and 
nothing was left to inherit by Qadir Bakhsh. The learned Trial Court also 
held that Mst. Lakhan and Mst. Azmat, defendants, are entitled to inherit 
8/13 share in the estate of Miran Khan as sisters but no decree was passed 
in their favour. Against the said judgment, Qadir Bakhsh as also the sisters 
of Miran Khan filed appeals before the Appellate Court. The learned 
Appellate Court vide judgment dated 07.10.1984, dismissed the appeal of 
Qadir Bakhsh and accepted the appeal of sisters of Miran Khan and held 
them entitled to inherit 8/13 share, which becomes 2/3rd of the estate of 
deceased Miran Khan. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate 
Court, the relatives of Mst. Aisha being defendants No. 2 to 13 filed RSA 
No. 14/1985 before the High Court, which was ultimately remitted back to 
the learned Appellate Court to decide all the appeals afresh in accordance 
with law. The learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 30.06.2009 
CIVIL PETITION NO.2658 OF 2019 
 
-: 3 :-
while maintaining the judgment of the learned Trial Court, dismissed the 
appeal filed by Qadir Bakhsh while the appeal filed by Mst. Lakhan Mai 
and Mst. Azmat Mai was accepted. The learned High Court vide impugned 
judgment upheld the concurrent findings of the learned two courts below. 
Hence, this petition seeking leave to appeal.   
3. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners 
contended that the mutation No. 59 was affected on the basis of sale 
consideration and necessity as Mst. Aisha had to pay a debt, which was 
satisfied by her brothers and nephews and in lieu thereof, she alienated 
the property to them. Contends that this fact was admitted by Mst. Aisha 
while appearing in the witness box and such assertion was not rebutted by 
the other side. Contends that the concurrent judgments of the courts 
below are not maintainable on the basis of law and facts, hence, the 
impugned judgment may be set at naught.  
4. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some 
length and have perused the impugned judgments as also the evidence 
available on the record.  
 
 
It is an admitted fact that one Miran Khan died while leaving 
behind agricultural land measuring 532 kanals 7 marlas as owner in 
possession in the year 1929. As the said Miran Khan was issueless, the 
entire estate was mutated in favour of Mst. Aisha, being his widow, vide 
mutation No. 51 attested on 14.02.1929. She inherited the property with 
title as lifetime owner without having the right to further alienate the said 
landed property. However, she alienated a portion of the landed property 
to his relatives vide mutation No. 59 attested on 31.10.1931 on the 
pretext that her late husband had borrowed a loan from Hindu Sahokars, 
which was still unpaid, therefore, as her relatives satisfied the debt, which 
compelled her to further alienate the land under compulsion in defiance of 
the embargo placed while inheriting the landed property. This prompted 
Qadir Bakhsh, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents to file a civil suit 
on the ground that the suit property was a life estate and Mst. Aisha had 
no authority to further alienate the same. He claimed that the transfer of 
property made by Mst. Aisha in favour of her relatives was void qua his 
CIVIL PETITION NO.2658 OF 2019 
 
-: 4 :-
right. This suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 02.01.1940. 
After the promulgation of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) 
Application Act, 1962, the limited ownership of Mst. Aisha ceased to have 
effect. Thereafter, said Qadir Bakhsh filed another civil suit against Mst. 
Aisha and claimed ownership in the estate of Miran Khan to the extent of 
3/4th share as collateral/reversioner. In this suit he did not implead the 
transferees i.e. the sisters of the deceased Miran Khan namely Mst. 
Lakhan and Mst. Azmat. However, at a later stage, Mst. Lakhan and Mst. 
Azmat being real sisters of Miran Khan were also impleaded as party on 
30.01.1978 and 29.10.1980. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment 
dated 17.06.1981 dismissed the suit by holding that the estate of Miran 
Khan is to be devolved upon his widow, mother and two sisters as under:- 
 
(i) 
Mst. Aisha, widow   
 
 
3/13 (1/4th share) 
 
(ii) 
Mst. Lakhan and Mst. Azmat, sisters 
8/13 (2/3rd share) 
 
(iii) 
Mst. Jannat Bibi, mother 
 
 
2/13 (1/6th share) 
 
5. 
 
However, the learned Trial Court did not pass any decree in 
favour of the sisters of Miran Khan. Against the said judgment, Qadir 
Bakhsh as also the sisters of Miran Khan filed appeals before the Appellate 
Court. Vide judgment dated 07.10.1984, the learned Appellate Court while 
maintaining the judgment of the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal of Qadir 
Bakhsh and accepted the appeal of Mst. Lakhan and Mst. Azmat. The 
record reflects that pursuant to a Regular Second Appeal filed by the 
relatives of Mst. Aisha, the learned High Court, remanded the matter back 
to the learned Appellate Court to decide the appeals filed by Qadir Bakhsh 
and sisters of Miran Khan afresh. In post-remand proceedings, the learned 
Appellate Court maintained the judgment of the Trial Court, which was 
further concurred by the learned High Court. The main argument of the 
learned counsel for the petitioners is that Miran Khan died without settling 
a loan payable by him to the Hindu Sahukar, which was ultimately paid by 
the relatives of his wife Mst. Aisha and in lieu of the said discharging of 
liability, she was compelled to make transfer of the suit property in their 
name. This assertion of the learned counsel is beyond the contents of the 
record surfaced during the proceedings before this Court. The statements 
CIVIL PETITION NO.2658 OF 2019 
 
-: 5 :-
of Qadir Bakhsh, plaintiff, and Mst. Aisha (DW-1) though stated this very 
aspect of the case but the same do not contain the amount of loan 
extended to the deceased husband of Mst. Aisha and the part paid by each 
of the relative to discharge the liability, which seems to us the most 
material aspect of the case. Even otherwise, a bare reading of the 
statements of both the plaintiff and DW-1 shows that this very ground has 
been expressed in generalize manner without specifying any particulars of 
the said transaction. Even Mst. Aisha could not disclose exact amount of 
the loan and the amount, which was considered for selling out the portion 
of the landed property. There is no denial to this fact that Mst. Aisha being 
limited owner of the suit property was not competent to transfer the 
portion of the landed property to her relatives. This very aspect of the case 
was adjudicated by each forum and was discarded, hence, there are 
concurrent findings recorded by each court regarding this aspect of the 
matter. The learned courts below have rightly held that under the law, 
Mst. Aisha, widow, Mst. Jannat Bibi, mother, and two sisters namely Mst. 
Lakhan and Mst. Azmat Bibi of Miran Khan excluded any other heir from 
inheritance and they were entitled to the decree of inheritance according 
to their share of inheritance. There are concurrent findings of fact 
recorded by the learned courts below. This Court in Muhammad Shafi and 
others Vs. Sultan (2007 SCMR 1602) while relying on case law from Indian 
as well as from the Pakistani jurisdiction has candidly held that this Court 
could not go behind concurrent findings of fact “unless it can be shown 
that the finding on the face of it is against the evidence or so patently 
improbable, or perverse that to accept it could amount to perpetuating a 
grave miscarriage of justice, or if there has been any misapplication of 
principle relating to appreciation of evidence or finally, if the finding could 
be demonstrated to be physically impossible.” Learned counsel for the 
petitioners has not been able to convince us that there is any misreading 
or non-reading of evidence or any legal or jurisdictional defect or flaw in 
the impugned judgment. Consequently, we do not find any reason or 
justification to interfere with the impugned judgment. This petition having 
CIVIL PETITION NO.2658 OF 2019 
 
-: 6 :-
no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. The above 
are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
17th of November, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
