Source: Fatāwā Rāshidiyyah, Page 578
➊ What do the scholars of Islam say regarding this matter: Somar, during his lifetime in 1960, divided his land among his three sons – Malook, Suleman, and Gulan. Each son received 43 acres of land. Afterwards, Malook passed away, and in 1974 the land records were officially registered in the names of the sons. Later, Muhammad Malook’s son, Mola Bakhsh, claimed that he too has a share in this land because he had separately purchased 16 acres and had it registered under his grandfather Somar Khan’s name. Since the land record was in his grandfather’s name, he did not receive this land. On the other hand, both parties agree that this land belonged to Somar. These statements were taken in the presence of both parties.
➋ The writing that Mola Bakhsh brought from the Darul Uloom mentions only the question from one party’s side. When the other party appeared, the question was clarified. Now please explain clearly: according to the Sharīʿah of Muhammad ﷺ, who is the rightful owner of these 16 acres?
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu was-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
➊ It should be understood that when Somar Khan divided his land among his sons in 1960, if Mola Bakhsh truly had land in his name, he should have taken it separately from his grandfather at that time. But he did not claim any land then. When he was asked to produce witnesses, he failed to do so.
Further, when the land was divided in 1960 and the records were registered in 1974, if Mola Bakhsh had any right, why did he remain silent for so long and not demand his share? Moreover, when the heirs signed the documents for registration, if he had a valid right, he would have refrained from signing and instead would have presented his witnesses.
Additionally, the land for which records were registered belongs to another portion that went into someone else’s share. If it were truly his land, it should have been entered under his own name, not under another’s.
➋ The statement that Mola Bakhsh obtained from Darul Uloom was written only in accordance with his personal benefit, presenting only one side of the case. Since the question itself was framed incorrectly, the answer based on it is also invalid.
Based on the above reasons, Mola Bakhsh’s claim cannot be proven. According to the Sharīʿah of Muhammad ﷺ, he has no right over the 16 acres of land.
ھذا ما عندی واللہ اعلم بالصواب
❖ Question
➊ What do the scholars of Islam say regarding this matter: Somar, during his lifetime in 1960, divided his land among his three sons – Malook, Suleman, and Gulan. Each son received 43 acres of land. Afterwards, Malook passed away, and in 1974 the land records were officially registered in the names of the sons. Later, Muhammad Malook’s son, Mola Bakhsh, claimed that he too has a share in this land because he had separately purchased 16 acres and had it registered under his grandfather Somar Khan’s name. Since the land record was in his grandfather’s name, he did not receive this land. On the other hand, both parties agree that this land belonged to Somar. These statements were taken in the presence of both parties.
➋ The writing that Mola Bakhsh brought from the Darul Uloom mentions only the question from one party’s side. When the other party appeared, the question was clarified. Now please explain clearly: according to the Sharīʿah of Muhammad ﷺ, who is the rightful owner of these 16 acres?
❖ Answer
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu was-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
➊ It should be understood that when Somar Khan divided his land among his sons in 1960, if Mola Bakhsh truly had land in his name, he should have taken it separately from his grandfather at that time. But he did not claim any land then. When he was asked to produce witnesses, he failed to do so.
Further, when the land was divided in 1960 and the records were registered in 1974, if Mola Bakhsh had any right, why did he remain silent for so long and not demand his share? Moreover, when the heirs signed the documents for registration, if he had a valid right, he would have refrained from signing and instead would have presented his witnesses.
Additionally, the land for which records were registered belongs to another portion that went into someone else’s share. If it were truly his land, it should have been entered under his own name, not under another’s.
➋ The statement that Mola Bakhsh obtained from Darul Uloom was written only in accordance with his personal benefit, presenting only one side of the case. Since the question itself was framed incorrectly, the answer based on it is also invalid.
Conclusion
Based on the above reasons, Mola Bakhsh’s claim cannot be proven. According to the Sharīʿah of Muhammad ﷺ, he has no right over the 16 acres of land.
ھذا ما عندی واللہ اعلم بالصواب
