Law: Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2020

Section: 23–24

Summary: The Supreme Court allowed the petition, set aside the trial, appellate and High Court judgments, and declared Mutation No.75 (dated 17.04.1955) and all subsequent transactions founded on it void as against the petitioners’ inheritance rights. The Court held that beneficiaries of an alleged gift must prove declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession by cogent evidence (a mutation alone is insufficient), that possession by a co-heir is ordinarily constructive for all heirs unless clear repudiation is shown, and that female heirs’ inheritance rights demand close judicial scrutiny; limitation and long possession could not substitute for proof of a valid gift. Core points: Petition allowed; lower courts’ judgments set aside. Mutation No.75 (17.04.1955) declared illegal and ineffective against petitioners’ inheritance rights. Burden of proof on beneficiaries of alleged gift to establish declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession. Mutation entries are fiscal records and do not create or extinguish title; mutation alone insufficient. Long possession and subsequent revenue transactions cannot cure failure to prove the original gift. Possession by one co-heir is constructive for all co-heirs unless there is clear repudiation. Continued payment of hissa batai to female heirs undermines claim of absolute gift. Limitation/long delay cannot override the foundational requirement of proving the gift. Female heirs’ inheritance rights are matters of public policy and warrant strict scrutiny of transactions excluding them. Revenue authorities must correct records; petitioners to get shares according to Islamic/inheritance law. No costs awarded. Law and Sections Topic Principle / Section / Law Authority / Case(s) / Explanation Burden of proof for gift Beneficiaries must prove declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession for a valid Hibba (gift) Faqir Ali v. Sakina Bibi (PLD 2022 SC 85); Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi (2020 SCMR 276). Mutation alone not proof. Legal effect of mutation Mutation is a fiscal/revenue entry; does not create or extinguish proprietary title Repeated Supreme Court dicta in this judgment; cited…