Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

Section: VIII,4

Muslim Family Law Ordinance (VIII of 1961)-------S. 4---Inheritance---Daughter of Pre-deceased son---Share of inheritance--Inheritance "per capita" or inheritance "per stripes"---While approving the inheritance mutation-in-question, the Revenue Officer transferred the whole share of pre-deceased son to his daughter (granddaughter of deceased/predecessor)--Whether said granddaughter was entitled to half share (1/2) or full share (7/8) of her pre-deceased father?---Held, that mutation-in-question was passed to decide the inheritance of predecessor of the parties while at the time of his (predecessor') death, two of his children (one son and one daughter) had already died; hence S. 4 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961 ('the Ordinance 1961') was attracted--Section 4 of Muslim Family Law Ordinance (VIII of 1961) lays down the principles for succession of pre-deceased person---Principle of succession in such a case is not inheritance "per capita" rather it is inheritance "per stripes" i.e. in accordance with the root to which the grandchild belongs; which means that, in the present case the grand daughter would only get the share to which she was entitled had her father not died before her grandfather---The provision of S. 4 of the Ordinance, 1961 is a special provision which should not be implemented to increase the share of grandchild beyond normal or decrease the shares of other descendants---In the present case, according to Shajra Nasab, pre-deceased son had no son and he had only one daughter---It was also admitted that the parties were followers of Sunni Law---Therefore, daughter of the said pre-deceased son had to inherit only her due share out of legacy of the deceased /predecessor (grandfather) in place of her father i.e. , but it was not done through the inheritance mutation-inquestion and whole share of pre-deceased son was given to his daughter---Thus, Addl. Commissioner Revenue while passing the impugned order ignored such important fact of the present case and arrived at a wrong and unfair conclusion which made the impugned order defective in the eyes of law---Member, Board of Revenue set aside the impugned order passed by the Addl. Commissioner…