IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 26 of 2024

[Shreemati Sarswati Devi vs. Shreemati Janki Bai]

Appellant : Shreemati Sarswati Devi through
Mr. Anand P. Kamrani, advocate
Respondent No.2 : Shreemati Janki Bai through
Ms. Sadaf Gul, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 17.02.2025
Date of Decision : 05.03.2025

J U D G M E N T

Jan Ali Junejo, J. —
The appellant has challenged the order dated 29.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order) passed by the learned District Judge, Karachi-South, in S.M.A. No.336/2024, whereby the share of Respondent No.2, Shreemati Janki Bai, was directed to be deposited with the Nazir till her arrival/appearance.

2. The essential facts leading to the filing of this Miscellaneous Appeal are that the appellant filed SMA No.336/2023 before the District Judge, South, seeking issuance of a Letter of Administration for a 2016 Suzuki Mehran car (Registration No. BEY-652) and a Succession Certificate for an amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000 left by her late husband Khemchand, who passed away on 24.12.2022 at Karachi.

The deceased was survived by three daughters, two sons, and a widow. The appellant claimed that under Hindu law, married daughters are not entitled to inherit from their father’s estate during the lifetime of their mother. Two daughters, Shreemati Hardevi and Shreemati Rajkumari, filed affidavits of no-objection, whereas the third daughter, Shreemati Janki Bai, residing in the Philippines, was shown as an objector.

Notices were served and an advocate appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2; however, no Vakalatnama was filed. After hearing the appellant’s counsel, the Trial Court passed the order dated 29.01.2024, granting shares to the daughters of the deceased, contrary to the appellant’s claim under Hindu law.

During pendency of the proceedings, one of the sons, Sudesh Kumar, died on 07.02.2024, leaving behind three legal heirs, namely Rahul, Hunesh Kumar, and Liza Kumari. The appellant contended that Sudesh Kumar’s heirs were entitled to inherit his share, as he had separated from his wife in 2009 and she had remarried.

The appellant further asserted that the Trial Court erred by:

  • Ignoring Hindu inheritance laws and established customs;

  • Relying upon irrelevant constitutional provisions, international conventions, and Indian amendments to Hindu law, which are not applicable in Pakistan; and

  • Misapplying Mitakshara law, which relates to joint family property, whereas the deceased’s property was exclusive in nature.

The appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order and sought issuance of a Succession Certificate for Rs. 1,45,00,000 (instead of Rs. 1,34,00,000) along with a Letter of Administration, limiting inheritance to the sons, widow, and grandchildren of the deceased.

3. Upon notice, Respondent No.2 appeared and filed objections, asserting that being the daughter of the deceased, she is legally entitled to her share of inheritance. It was contended that her rights are protected under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which guarantees equality without discrimination based on sex, caste, creed, or race. Any law inconsistent with the Constitution is ultra vires.

It was argued that the District Court had correctly examined inheritance laws, customs, and traditions, and its decision was in conformity with constitutional guarantees protecting women’s rights, particularly Articles 25, 27, 34, and 38. Reliance was placed on the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of India, granting daughters equal inheritance rights. The appeal was alleged to be an attempt to deprive Respondent No.2 of her lawful inheritance and was prayed to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that under traditional Hindu law as practiced in Pakistan, married daughters do not inherit from their father’s estate during the lifetime of their mother. He contended that the Trial Court erred in relying upon constitutional provisions, international conventions, and Indian amendments that are not applicable in Pakistan. It was further argued that the Mitakshara law was wrongly applied, as the deceased’s property was not joint family property.

The appellant sought:

  • Issuance of a Succession Certificate for Rs. 1,45,00,000;

  • Grant of Letter of Administration limiting inheritance to sons, widow, and grandchildren; and

  • Recognition of Sudesh Kumar’s children as his legal heirs.

5. Conversely, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that inheritance rights are protected by the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and any discriminatory law or custom is void. Reliance was placed upon Articles 25, 27, 34, and 38. It was argued that Pakistani courts should adopt a progressive interpretation in line with constitutional mandates of equality and dismiss the appeal.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned District Court’s reliance upon constitutional articles, international conventions, and Indian amendments, which are not applicable in Pakistan, is misplaced. The appellant rightly pointed out the misapplication of Mitakshara law, which governs joint family property, whereas the property in question was exclusively owned by the deceased.

Under traditional Hindu law applicable in Pakistan, married daughters do not inherit from their father’s estate during the lifetime of their mother. The reliance upon the Indian amendment of 2005 is irrelevant in the Pakistani legal context. The widow holds only a limited interest (widow’s estate), and upon her death, succession devolves upon the next heirs of the husband.

7. In Mrs. Ratna Devi v. Justice (Retd.) Rana Bhagwandas (PLD 2016 Sindh 197), this Court held that under the Mitakshara system, daughters are not entitled to inherit during the lifetime of their mother, and succession opens only after her death.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.01.2024 passed in S.M.A. No.336/2023 is hereby set aside. The Succession Certificate for Rs. 1,45,00,000 and Letters of Administration in respect of Suzuki Mehran Car, Registration No. BEY-652, Model 2016, are directed to be issued. Inheritance shall be limited to the sons, widow, and grandchildren, excluding the married daughters. Parties shall bear their own costs.

JUDGE