Lawyers should not help perpetuate injustice: SC

Slaps Rs0.5m fine on man who deprived his mother, sister of their inheritance

ISLAMABAD:

The apex court has slapped a fine of Rs0.5 million on a man who tried to deprive his mother and sister of their shares in inheritance, ordering the revenue department to sell his properties and pay the heirs of the said women, in case of non-payment of the fine.

The four-page order authored by Justice Qazi Faez Isa said appeals based on such false claims should not have reached the Supreme Court. The judge urged lawyers to reflect on how it is best to advise their clients, and not to become an instrument to perpetuate injustice.

The litigant had claimed that his father had presented him the property as a gift on April 21, 1993. He, however, failed to provide the court the gift deed or its attested copies.

Rather, on the basis of a document which had no legal significance, the appellant sought to deprive his mother and sister of their inheritance.

"It was for the beneficiary of the gift, who was the appellant, to have established it. The appellant did not produce the gift deed or its copy, let alone establish the purported gift in his favour. What the appellant did, is what we have often noted on the part of some male heirs, which is to deprive female heirs of their inheritance, which constitutes fraud," the verdict said.

The court noted that many females do not have the authority to approach the courts to obtain their rights. Those like the respondents that do, suffer, and often have to wait for years, to get what was rightfully theirs to begin with.

Also read: Justice Minallah questions dissolution of PA, maintains suo motu dismissed 4-3

"The appellant proceeded on the assumption, like some male heirs do, that even if they eventually lose the case they would still get the usufruct of the land by illegally retaining its possession over the years spent in litigation."

Usufruct is the right to enjoy the use and advantages of another's property short of the destruction or waste of its substance.

The court imposed special costs of Rs.500,000 on the appellant as the defence taken by him was vexatious and false.

"Costs to be paid by the appellant to the surviving respondent. If costs are not paid the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the appellant, and till costs are paid they shall continue to constitute a charge on the estate of the appellant," it added.