SC sets rules on hiba in inheritance cases Pakistan

Supreme Court sets rules on hiba in inheritance disputes, restores sisters’ property share

Islamabad: The Supreme Court has ruled that the burden of proving an oral gift, known as hiba, lies on those claiming to benefit from it, while restoring the inherited share of two sisters in a decades-old property dispute. The decision came in a case that stretched back to 1955 and involved allegations that female heirs were deprived of their lawful inheritance through an oral gift arrangement. The court’s ruling reinforces the legal and constitutional protection of women’s inheritance rights and sets clear standards for evaluating such claims in future disputes.

The judgment was issued by a division bench at the SC Lahore Registry comprising Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad. The bench allowed the appeal filed by Noor Muhammad and set aside earlier decisions of the trial court, appellate court, and high court, which had upheld the validity of the alleged oral gift. The court directed revenue authorities to correct land records and ensure the rightful share of inheritance is restored to the sisters in accordance with the law.

Court rules on legal burden of proving oral gift in inheritance cases

The Supreme Court examined the long-standing dispute that began after the death of the parties’ father in 1955. According to the record, two brothers had transferred the inherited property into their names, claiming it was orally gifted to them by the family members. The female heirs, however, challenged this claim, arguing that the alleged oral gift was fraudulently used to deprive them of their inheritance rights.

The court observed that the trial court had erred by treating the alleged oral gift as established fact without properly assessing whether the legal burden of proof had been discharged. It emphasized that in such cases, the responsibility to prove the existence of a valid gift rests entirely on the beneficiaries of the alleged transaction.

The judgment referred to earlier case law, including Faqir Ali and others versus Sakina Bibi and others, where it was held that when female heirs are excluded from inheritance, the onus lies on the beneficiaries to prove the legitimacy of the gift.

The court further clarified that a valid gift must meet three essential conditions:

Declaration of the gift by the donor

Acceptance of the gift by the donee

Delivery of possession of the property

It also noted that even if an oral gift remains unchallenged for years, the legal requirement to prove its validity does not change.

Court reinforces women’s inheritance rights under constitutional framework

The judgment strongly emphasized that inheritance is a legal and Sharia-based right that automatically devolves upon all heirs after the death of the deceased. It stated that such rights cannot be taken away through family arrangements, pressure, or customary practices.

The bench observed that women’s inheritance rights are often undermined through informal transactions, including alleged oral gifts, fake mutations, and family settlements. It warned that such cases require strict judicial scrutiny to ensure lawful distribution of property.

The court also rejected the argument that the claim was filed after an excessive delay, noting that records showed the female heirs had continued receiving income from the property for several years after the alleged gift. It further observed that subsequent transactions by male heirs suggested there was no clear awareness of any valid exclusion of female heirs.

In its constitutional reference, the court highlighted protections under Articles 2A, 23, 24, 25, 35, and 227, stressing equality before law, protection of property rights, and the state’s responsibility to safeguard family and women’s rights.

Court rejects mutation as proof of ownership transfer

The Supreme Court also clarified that land mutation entries are maintained for fiscal purposes only and do not create or extinguish ownership rights. It stated that relying on mutation as proof of ownership transfer is legally incorrect.

The bench noted that mutations recorded in 1955 in favor of male heirs were treated by lower courts as evidence of valid transfer, a finding the Supreme Court rejected. It emphasized that proprietary rights cannot be established merely through administrative entries without lawful proof of transfer.

The court concluded that inheritance rights must be protected in practice and not just on paper, directing all relevant authorities to ensure proper implementation of legal shares.
(The Express Tribune)