By:Maryam Zeb
There is a particular kind of victory in our courts that does not always feel like the end of a long struggle. A woman may spend years establishing that she is entitled to a share in her father’s property. She goes through lawyers, hearings, evidence, adjournments and arguments. Eventually, the court recognises her entitlement. Her lawyer tells her, “Mubarak ho, aap ka case decree ho gaya.” And then comes the question that deserves equal clarity: “Ab mujhe meri property kab milegi?”
We often regard a judgment as the final destination of litigation. For a woman seeking her inheritance, however, there can be a considerable distance between having a legal right, obtaining a judgment recognising that right, securing a decree, obtaining possession and ultimately being able to use and enjoy the property. In some cases, a woman may succeed in establishing her share but still not have physical possession of the property. In others, she may be recognised as a co-owner without being able to identify a particular portion of land or a specific part of a house as exclusively hers. The law may recognise her entitlement long before the practical arrangements necessary to realise that entitlement are completed.
The first principle to appreciate is that inheritance is not a favour bestowed by a brother upon his sister. It is a legal right. Yet, in practice, women may encounter circumstances in which their names are omitted from revenue records, their lawful shares are treated as something they should voluntarily relinquish, or various transactions are relied upon to exclude them from property.
In Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (decd.) through LRs and others, reported as 2021 SCMR 73, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute concerning female heirs whose inheritance rights were sought to be affected through alleged gift mutations. The case illustrates the importance of carefully examining transactions that have the effect of depriving female heirs of their lawful shares.
Another important distinction concerns mutation. A mutation is essentially a revenue record entry; by itself, it does not necessarily settle every question relating to title. This distinction becomes particularly significant when a woman discovers that property which should have devolved upon her has already been entered in another person’s name. The relevant question is therefore not merely, “Whose name appears in the mutation?” It is also, “How did that person acquire the property, and can the transaction in question legally affect an already existing inheritance right?”
The answer may involve an alleged gift, relinquishment, family settlement or another form of transaction. On the face of the record, such arrangements may appear properly documented. Yet documentation alone does not necessarily resolve questions relating to consent, consideration, possession, authority, fraud, coercion or the legal validity of the transaction. This is why disputes concerning female inheritance can sometimes involve considerably more than the simple calculation of a share under Islamic law.
There is, of course, another dimension to the issue: the family itself. This is perhaps the part that rarely finds expression in a decree sheet. A woman may be told, “Tumhara bhai hi toh hai.” She may hear, “Tumhein property ki kya zaroorat hai?” or “Apna ghar basao, bhaiyon ke khilaf case kyun kar rahi ho?” The law may recognise that she owns a share, while social and familial expectations may make her feel that she must justify her decision to claim it.
A woman’s exercise of a lawful inheritance right should not, however, be viewed as an act of hostility towards her brothers or parents. At the same time, the legal framework recognises that deprivation of a woman’s inheritance through unlawful or deceitful means is a matter requiring appropriate legal protection. Section 498-A of the Pakistan Penal Code addresses deprivation of a woman’s inheritance through deceitful or illegal means. Similarly, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2019 was enacted to protect women’s ownership and possession of property against deprivation through harassment, coercion, force or fraud.
Once such a matter reaches the courts, the legal journey may become more nuanced. Depending on the facts, a woman may need to seek declaration of her right, cancellation of an unlawful transaction, partition, possession, injunction or execution of a decree. These remedies serve different purposes and are not necessarily interchangeable.
This distinction was recently considered by the Peshawar High Court in Ali Asghar v. Mst. Farkhanda Rani, reported as 2026 CLC 1159. The Court discussed the scope of summary jurisdiction under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Women’s Property Rights Act, particularly where the property remains joint and unpartitioned or where complicated questions of title arise. Thus, recognition of an undivided share does not necessarily translate immediately into exclusive possession of a particular room, house or piece of land. Where necessary, the claimant may have to pursue the appropriate proceedings to determine and separate her specific share.
There is also the question of execution. A judgment determines and declares rights; a decree gives formal effect to the adjudication; but the practical enforcement of that decree may require a further stage of proceedings. In disputes involving joint property, the distinction between an entitlement to a share and actual physical possession can therefore become significant. The Peshawar High Court has also considered these questions in the context of execution and possession in Sher Bahadar and others v. Abdul Wakil and others, reported as 2024 PHC 386 / PLJ 2025 Peshawar 111.
This is why the conversation around women’s inheritance needs to extend beyond the simple question: “Does she have a right?” That may only be the beginning of the legal journey. The subsequent questions are equally important: Has her right been recognised? Has the property been properly identified? Has the title been clarified? Where necessary, has the property been dealt with through the appropriate proceedings? Has the decree been executed? Has possession been obtained? And, ultimately, can she actually use and enjoy the property that the law recognises as belonging to her?
A woman should not have to choose between her inheritance and her relationship with her family. Nor should exercising a lawful right necessarily be portrayed as an expression of hostility towards one’s brothers or parents. At the same time, a delay in obtaining a specific portion of property does not necessarily mean that the legal system has denied her entitlement. In cases involving joint ownership, the nature of the property and the requirements of the applicable legal process may make further proceedings necessary before an individual share can be physically identified and placed in possession.
This is where the conversation needs to become more practical. For many women, the most difficult part of claiming property may not be establishing that the law gives them a right. The greater challenge may lie in moving from “This belongs to you” to “Here is the property.”
A decree is undoubtedly an important legal victory. But the meaningful realisation of justice ultimately extends beyond what is recorded on paper. It lies in ensuring that a person whose lawful entitlement has been recognised is, through the appropriate legal process, able to identify, possess and meaningfully enjoy the right that the court has recognised.
Writer is an advocate hailing from North Waziristan
