The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has overturned a ruling by the Balochistan High Court that deprived several sisters of their rightful parental inheritance. The court held that ambiguous contractual language cannot override Islamic property rights or constitutional protections granted to women.
In a significant development, FCC Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi set aside the June 2025 decision of the provincial high court. They reinstated a trial court order to re-examine allegations of familial fraud, signaling a strong judicial stance against local practices that historically disenfranchise female heirs.
The dispute originated when Bibi Amina and her sisters filed an appeal, initially before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. However, following the enactment of the 27th Constitution Amendment Act, 2025, which restructured the judiciary, the case was transferred to the newly formed Federal Constitutional Court for final resolution.
The sisters had sued their brothers, including a respondent named Shamsullah, seeking their lawful shares from the estate of their deceased parents, Abdul Rehman and Bibi Sabza. During the initial trial, the brothers presented a three-page out-of-court compromise deed, which led the trial court to issue a consent decree in June 2021, effectively ending the suit.
Fourteen months later, the sisters challenged the decree under the court’s curative civil jurisdiction, alleging that the brothers had used fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment to obtain their signatures. They testified that their consent was neither free nor informed, claiming the document was deliberately designed to deprive them of their rightful inheritance.
The legal dispute centered on Clause 2 of the settlement deed, which stated that all properties left by the parents—including those labeled as “Ghair Mutadawia,” an Arabic term indicating assets not involved in the active lawsuit—would be registered exclusively in the names of the male heirs.
The case saw multiple rounds of lower court proceedings. Initially, a Quetta trial court invalidated the compromise deed and reinstated the sisters’ suit. However, after several appeals and remands, the Balochistan High Court ruled in June 2025 in favor of the brothers, reviving the out-of-court settlement.
The Federal Constitutional Court sharply criticized the high court’s decision, declaring the settlement deed void due to clear procedural defects and legal uncertainty. Chief Justice Khan noted that the first two pages of the compromise deed lacked signatures, thumbprints, or witness attestations from any involved parties. He added that if these unsigned pages were separated from the final signed page, the document lost all independent meaning and context.
Moreover, the court ruled that an agreement intended to extinguish valuable inheritance rights cannot rely on vague or indefinite language. The deed failed to specify any precise locations, survey numbers, boundaries, or revenue records for the properties the sisters were purportedly relinquishing. Section 29 of the Contract Act, 1872, contracts marked by such uncertainty are void from the outset.
Emphasizing divine and constitutional protections, the court underscored the heightened safeguards required for vulnerable or illiterate women under the traditional “parda nasheen” doctrine. The record showed no independent advisor, legal counsel, or close relative had explained the document’s legal consequences to the sisters before they signed it.
Under Pakistani law, the party benefiting from a contract must prove that a vulnerable signee gave fully informed and voluntary consent. The ruling placed this principle within the broader framework of global human rights and Pakistan’s constitutional guarantees, highlighting that female inheritance rights are firmly protected.
The court cited explicit directives from Surah An-Nisa of the Holy Quran, which is the supreme legislative source under Article 227 of the Constitution, affirming that women are entitled to a fixed, mandatory share of parental estates. The bench aligned these religious mandates with the fundamental rights enshrined in the 1973 Constitution, including Articles 4, 9, 23, 24, and 25, which guarantee gender equality, economic security, and protection against unlawful deprivation of property.
Consequently, the high court’s validation of the settlement was annulled by the FCC. The case was remanded to the civil court with instructions to thoroughly examine all ancestral land assets, accurately calculate the sisters’ rightful shares, and conduct a completely new trial.
