AGL40.16▲ 0.13 (0.00%)AIRLINK131.73▲ 2.42 (0.02%)BOP6.69▼ -0.11 (-0.02%)CNERGY4.47▼ -0.17 (-0.04%)DCL8.82▲ 0.19 (0.02%)DFML40.61▼ -0.34 (-0.01%)DGKC84.08▼ -1.66 (-0.02%)FCCL32.34▼ -0.66 (-0.02%)FFBL68.61▲ 2.08 (0.03%)FFL11.35▼ -0.11 (-0.01%)HUBC111.76▲ 1.18 (0.01%)HUMNL14.31▼ -0.32 (-0.02%)KEL5.22▼ -0.02 (0.00%)KOSM8.98▲ 0.87 (0.11%)MLCF39.43▼ -0.64 (-0.02%)NBP60.29▼ -0.22 (0.00%)OGDC194.94▼ -0.53 (0.00%)PAEL26.69▼ -0.41 (-0.02%)PIBTL7.48▼ -0.16 (-0.02%)PPL155.77▼ -0.05 (0.00%)PRL26.68▼ -0.69 (-0.03%)PTC18.3▼ -0.26 (-0.01%)SEARL83.02▼ -2.08 (-0.02%)TELE8.23▲ 0.33 (0.04%)TOMCL34.55▼ -0.33 (-0.01%)TPLP8.81▼ -0.41 (-0.04%)TREET16.7▼ -0.11 (-0.01%)TRG62.45▼ -0.41 (-0.01%)UNITY27.44▼ -0.31 (-0.01%)WTL1.28▼ -0.02 (-0.02%)

Women win inheritance share after 37 years

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

The Lahore High Court on Friday ruled in favour of two sisters, deprived of rightful inheritance in their father’s property for over 37 years. Justice Rasaal Hassan Syed issued a 15-page verdict in the case.

During hearing on Friday, the petitioners – Kamala Bibi and Lalu Bibi, told the court that their brothers seized their share of inheritance by forging their father’s signatures. “They falsely declared that the property was given to them as a gift.”

The men, Gul Sher and Muhammad Sher, submitted a fake agreement to the Punjab Revenue Department, claiming that their father had verbally gifted their sisters’ share of property to them.

The sisters had earlier approached a sessions court where their appeal was rejected.
During the hearing on Friday, Justice Syed laid down rules regarding gifting property.

According to the written judgment, when a gift is not declared on paper and is announced verbally, the claimant is required to state the time, place, and date of the gift. The claimant is also required to disclose the names of the witnesses present when the gift was given.

In this case, the revenue officer, who’s responsible for confirming the agreement, was not present. A signature or thumbprint of the father, too, is missing from the documents.

The court pointed out that as per the case record, no attempt was made by the revenue department to ascertain the identities of the people who were present at the time of the confirmation of the agreement.

 

Related Posts

Get Alerts