Property and inheritance · Supreme Court of Pakistan
The land was mutated in the brother's name. Is the sister's share gone?
The myth: “Once the land is mutated in the brother's name, the sister's share is gone.”Wrong
The short answer
No. A sister becomes owner of her share the very moment her father dies, and a mutation (intiqal) that leaves her out does not take it away. In December 2023 the Supreme Court cancelled a 1981 mutation and every mutation after it, and gave the sister one third of the whole property.
Mst. Sehat Bibi v. Bahar Khan · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024 SCMR 938 · decided 1 December 2023
By the FAI Legal editorial desk · 10 October 2026 · 4 min read
In many families, when a father dies, the land is entered in the revenue record in the sons' names only. Years pass, and the sisters are told the record is final and their share is gone.
This matters to daughters and sisters kept out of their inheritance, and to brothers and buyers who rely on a mutation that left heirs out.
Key points
- The Supreme Court in 2024 SCMR 938: heirs inherit their share "the very moment" the predecessor dies (paragraph 8).
- A mutation recording a son as "the only legal heir" was cancelled, together with all subsequent mutations, decades after it was made (paragraph 9).
- The sister got one third out of the entire property, not just a share of the price of the land her brother had sold, and the land he sold was counted against his own share (paragraph 9).
- In 2023 SCMR 988, a son who kept his mother and sister out of their inheritance on the strength of a photocopy had his appeal dismissed with special costs of Rs. 500,000 (paragraph 8).
The rule in one line
Inheritance does not wait for the revenue record. Each heir owns their share from the moment the parent dies. A mutation is a record, and a wrong record can be corrected, even many years later.
What happened in this case
A father died in 1980. On 24 March 1981, Mutation No. 56 recorded his son as "the only legal heir", leaving out his daughter.
In 2001 the son sold some of the land.
The sister sued. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed her suit. The High Court of Balochistan gave her only one third of the Rs. 13,00,000 sale price of the land that had been sold.
What the Supreme Court said
The Supreme Court decided her appeal on 1 December 2023, reported as Mst. Sehat Bibi v. Bahar Khan, 2024 SCMR 938.
The Court held that heirs inherit "the very moment" their predecessor dies (paragraph 8).
It cancelled Mutation No. 56 "and all subsequent mutations". The sister was given one third out of the entire property, the estate was to be mutated afresh according to law, and the land her brother had sold was to be counted towards his own share (paragraph 9).
Keeping heirs out can cost money
In Muhammad Rafiq v. Mst. Ghulam Zoharan Mai, 2023 SCMR 988, decided on 17 March 2023, a son kept his mother and sister out of their inheritance relying on a photocopy.
The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal with costs throughout and special costs of Rs. 500,000 (paragraph 8).
The case at a glance
- Facts
- The father died in 1980. Mutation No. 56 of 24 March 1981 recorded the son as the only legal heir. He sold some land in 2001. The sister's suit was dismissed by the trial and appellate courts; the High Court of Balochistan gave her one third of the Rs. 13,00,000 sale price.
- The question
- Whether a sister left out of a mutation decades earlier can still claim her inheritance in the whole property, or only a share of the sale price.
- What the Court held
- She can. Mutation No. 56 and all subsequent mutations cancelled; the sister gets one third out of the entire property; a fresh mutation; land sold by the brother counted in his share.
- Why
- Heirs inherit the very moment the predecessor dies. A mutation that records a son as the only heir cannot take away a share that already belonged to the daughter.
- Limits
- The shares here followed this family's heirs. The judgment deals with a sister left out of the record; it does not decide every claim by a buyer of inherited land. Each case turns on its own facts and record.
The law it relies on
What this does not mean
- It does not mean a mutation is meaningless. It is the revenue record, and it should be corrected when it is wrong, which is what the Court ordered.
- It does not mean the sister gets the whole land back. She gets her own share, here one third of the entire property, and the brother's sales count against his share.
- It does not fix the share for every family. Shares depend on who the heirs are.
Questions people ask
My brothers got the land mutated in their names years ago. Is it too late?
In 2024 SCMR 938 the Supreme Court cancelled a mutation made in 1981 and every mutation after it, holding that heirs inherit the very moment the parent dies. Speak to a lawyer about your own record and dates.
My brother has already sold part of the land. Do I only get money?
In that case the High Court had given the sister only a third of the sale price. The Supreme Court instead gave her one third of the entire property and counted the land her brother sold towards his own share.
Can a court punish someone for keeping heirs out?
In 2023 SCMR 988 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of a son who kept his mother and sister out on the strength of a photocopy, with special costs of Rs. 500,000.
Check yourself
True or false? “Once the land is mutated in the brother's name, the sister's share is gone.”
Wrong. No. A sister becomes owner of her share the very moment her father dies, and a mutation (intiqal) that leaves her out does not take it away. In December 2023 the Supreme Court cancelled a 1981 mutation and every mutation after it, and gave the sister one third of the whole property.
Next one: true or false? “If I pay my rent on time, the landlord can never make me leave.”
Sources
- Mst. Sehat Bibi v. Bahar Khan, 2024 SCMR 938 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 1 December 2023), paras 8, 9
Heirs inherit the very moment the predecessor dies; a 1981 mutation naming the son the only legal heir and all subsequent mutations cancelled; sister given one third of the entire property. verified against full text Supreme Court of Pakistan (judgment PDF) - Muhammad Rafiq v. Mst. Ghulam Zoharan Mai, 2023 SCMR 988 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 17 March 2023), paras 8
A son who deprived his mother and sister of inheritance on a photocopy; appeal dismissed with costs throughout and special costs of Rs. 500,000. verified against full text Supreme Court of Pakistan (judgment PDF)
Every quote and section above is traced to the full judgment or statute text by an automatic check that runs on every update.
What the reel says
Read the words of the reel
Heard this one? "Once the land is mutated in the brother's name, the sister's share is gone." Wrong.
The Supreme Court: heirs inherit their share the very moment the parent dies.
In 1980 a father died. In 1981 his son had the mutation record him as the only legal heir, and later sold some of the land. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the sister's suit, and the High Court gave her only a third of the Rs. 13 lakh sale price.
The Supreme Court (December 2023): that mutation and every mutation after it cancelled. The sister gets one third of the whole property, the estate is to be mutated afresh, and the land her brother sold counts towards his own share (2024 SCMR 938).
In another case, a son kept his mother and sister out of their inheritance on the strength of a photocopy. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal with special costs of Rs. 5 lakh (2023 SCMR 988).
Educational legal information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. Speak to a qualified lawyer about your situation. Reading this page does not create a lawyer and client relationship. Review status: Pending advocate review. How we check.
