The Supreme Court of Pakistan has restored the inheritance share of two sisters in ancestral land after a 71-year legal battle, setting aside three lower-court decisions that had upheld an alleged oral gift (hiba) by their brothers. The court held that the burden of proving an oral gift lies on whoever claims to benefit from it, and that private agreements, family pressure and customary practices cannot extinguish women's inheritance rights.

In a 2026 Supreme Court ruling now circulating widely again, the apex court restored two sisters' share in ancestral land after a 71-year legal battle. Three courts had accepted their brothers' story — that the mother and sisters had orally gifted their shares — but the Supreme Court set those decisions aside and laid down a clear rule: whoever claims ownership through an oral gift (hiba) must prove it, with strict scrutiny where women are cut out of their inheritance. This is general legal information, not advice for your case.

The case: a father's death in 1955, a gift that was not

When the father died in 1955, two brothers transferred the family's ancestral property into their own names, saying their mother and sisters had gifted their shares through an oral arrangement. The sisters maintained the alleged gift had been fabricated to deprive them of their lawful inheritance.

The trial court believed the brothers — as did the appellate court and then the High Court. But a two-member bench at the Lahore Registry — Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad — allowed Noor Muhammad's appeal, set those findings aside as contrary to fact and law, and directed revenue authorities to correct the land record so the sisters receive their rightful share.

The core holding: the burden of proof is on the claimant

The judgment's central question is who must prove what:

  • The burden of proving an alleged oral gift rests on the party claiming to benefit from it — examined with particular strictness where the claim would deprive a widow or daughters of their Islamic and legal inheritance rights.
  • The trial court had treated the alleged gift itself as proof instead of testing whether the burden of evidence had been discharged — an approach contrary to settled legal principles.
  • A valid gift needs three elements: a clear declaration by the donor, acceptance by the recipient and transfer of possession. Claiming a gift happened is not enough; each element needs convincing, independent and reliable evidence.

The judgment also invoked Faqir Ali and others v Sakina Bibi and others: where a gift's beneficiaries seek to exclude female heirs, the onus lies upon them to prove the gift.

Why mutations, possession and old entries failed

The brothers leaned on time and paperwork — a 1955 gift mutation, long possession and later consolidation proceedings. The court rejected each prop:

  • Mutation is not title. A revenue mutation serves only fiscal and revenue purposes; it neither creates nor extinguishes ownership. The lower courts had seriously erred in treating a mutation as proof that the gift had actually taken place.
  • Long possession proves nothing by itself. A person in long possession may simply have been occupying the property as a co-heir.
  • Later entries cannot backdate a gift. Consolidation proceedings, land exchanges, private partitions and subsequent entries cannot establish that a valid oral gift took place in 1955.
  • Delay did not defeat the claim. The mother and sisters had kept receiving income from the land for years after the alleged gift — showing they were unaware of any transfer excluding them.

Inheritance is a right, not a favour

The judgment grounds women's inheritance in both law and faith: inheritance is neither a favour of male relatives nor a matter of family tradition — it is a legal and Islamic right that vests automatically in the legal heirs the moment the deceased dies. Private agreements, family pressure and customary practices cannot extinguish it; any transaction meant to deprive women of their lawful inheritance — fraudulent gifts, fake mutations or other deceptive practices — faces strict judicial scrutiny.

The court added that constitutional guarantees — equality before the law and protection of property rights — fully support women's entitlement, and observed that denial of inheritance to women remains a serious social issue in Pakistan, often beginning within families long before it reaches the courts.

Practical checklist: protecting a woman's inheritance

  • Verify the revenue record. Get the fard and check how each mutation arose; a mutation alone proves nothing.
  • Challenge suspicious gifts. If a gift surfaces after a death and excludes female heirs, demand proof of declaration, acceptance and transfer of possession.
  • Keep your paper trail. Receipts of rent, produce or income from family land show you never gave up your share.
  • Do not sign under pressure. Relinquishments obtained through coercion or deception can be challenged.
  • Insist on registered transactions. Oral family arrangements are what fraudsters exploit; genuine gifts should be documented and registered.
  • File, do not wait. A civil-court suit for declaration and possession — not just a revenue-office complaint — enforces the right, and early action answers limitation objections.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Supreme Court decide in the 71-year inheritance case?

Justices Shahid Bilal Hassan and Shakeel Ahmad allowed Noor Muhammad's appeal, set aside the three lower-court decisions upholding an alleged oral gift, and directed revenue authorities to correct the land record so the sisters get their lawful share. The dispute began with their father's death in 1955.

What must be proved for an oral gift (hiba) of property?

Three elements: a clear declaration by the donor, acceptance by the recipient and transfer of possession. The burden rests on whoever claims to benefit — tested strictly where the gift would exclude female heirs. Merely claiming a gift happened is not enough.

Does a mutation entry in the revenue record prove ownership?

No. A mutation serves only fiscal and revenue purposes; it neither creates nor extinguishes title. The lower courts had seriously erred in treating a mutation as proof that the gift had actually taken place.

Can family pressure or a private agreement take away a woman's inheritance?

No. Inheritance vests automatically in the legal heirs on the deceased's death, and private agreements, family pressure or customary practices cannot extinguish women's rights. Fraudulent gifts, fake mutations and deceptive practices face strict judicial scrutiny.

Related guides

Need guidance on your situation? If a sister, mother or daughter in your family has been excluded from inherited property — by an alleged gift, a one-sided mutation or family pressure — get legal advice early, before records harden against the claim. We handle inheritance matters in complete confidence. Contact us to book a consultation.

By Advocate Muhammad Iqbal Khan

Draft pending advocate review.

Last reviewed:

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice for your specific matter.

Common questions

A two-member bench at the Lahore Registry — Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad — allowed the appeal of Noor Muhammad, set aside the trial court, appellate court and High Court decisions that had upheld an alleged oral gift, and directed the revenue authorities to correct the land record so the sisters receive their lawful share of the ancestral property. The dispute began with their father's death in 1955.

Three elements: a clear declaration by the donor, acceptance by the recipient, and transfer of possession. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving each element rests on the party claiming to benefit from the gift — and is tested strictly where the gift would exclude female heirs. Merely claiming a gift happened is not enough.

No. The court held that a revenue mutation serves only fiscal and revenue purposes — it neither creates nor extinguishes title. The lower courts had seriously erred in treating the existence of a mutation as proof that the gift transaction had actually taken place.

No. The judgment held that inheritance vests automatically in the legal heirs upon the deceased's death, and that private agreements, family pressure or customary practices cannot extinguish women's inheritance rights. Fraudulent gifts, fake mutations and other deceptive practices must face strict judicial scrutiny.

Related guides

Need guidance on your matter? Book a Consultation

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice for your specific matter. Online contact does not create an advocate–client relationship.