Sister's share in property: if the brothers sell it, who keeps the land?

Key points

• A will that favours the sons over the daughters is void: the wills were "contrary to the principles of Sharia and are, as a result, null and void" (para 12).
• The daughters' right is to a share of everything their father left, at his death: "The daughters were just as entitled as their brothers to a share in their father's businesses and other properties at the time the estate would have opened up" (para 12).
• A buyer who checked the land record and paid in good faith is protected: "the Purchasers exercised due diligence by approaching the revenue records for ascertaining title of the properties" (para 13; s.41, Transfer of Property Act).
• The brothers who sold pay the sisters in money: "The sons will pay mark up from the date of sale at the Bank rate to the daughters on their respective shares till the time of payment" (para 14).
• Everything else the parents left goes to all the sons and daughters by their shares under Sharia (para 14).

Sister's share in property: the short answer

Can a sister claim her share if her brothers have already sold the property? Yes. Her share is hers from the moment her father dies. If the land was sold to a buyer who checked the land record and paid in good faith, the Supreme Court has let that buyer keep it and made the brothers who sold it pay the sister her share of the price, with profit at the bank rate from the day of the sale. If the buyer did not act in good faith, the sale can be undone.

People search this as sister share in property in pakistan, right of sister in property, can sister claim brother's property and, in Roman Urdu, wirasat me behan ka hissa. How big each share is, and the steps to claim it, are in our guide to the daughters' share in a father's property: failegal.site/media/daughters-share-in-fathers-property-pakistan-legal-heirs.

Quetta, 1977: a will that left the daughters out

The father died on 2 June 1977. He left agricultural, residential and revenue-generating properties and businesses, and his heirs were his widow, two sons and four daughters (para 3). Two registered wills of 24 December 1970, by the father and the mother, had been acted upon in their lifetimes (paras 5 and 10).

The Court found that the father's will "has been drawn up with an obvious bias in favour of the sons. The sons have been given the lion's share in the inheritable pool of properties especially with respect to lucrative revenue-generating properties/businesses to the complete exclusion of the daughters" (para 12). The daughters said that "despite multiple requests, the brothers refused to partition the estate between the brothers and sisters according to their Quranic shares" (para 3).

Seventeen years in court

The daughters filed their suit for declaration, possession, partition and accounts on 13 December 2005. The trial court dismissed it on 21 March 2014. After a remand and a first trip to the Supreme Court, the High Court of Balochistan decreed the suit on 30 June 2021, and it also protected the people who had bought some of the properties from the brothers (para 3). Both sides appealed.

We checked it in FAI Legal

The judgment is on FAI Legal's Judgment Search, marked as a citation from the court record, with every paragraph open in the judgment reader. The paragraphs quoted on this page are paras 3, 12, 13 and 14. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and section 498-A of the Pakistan Penal Code are on Statute Search.

You be the judge: the buyers or the sisters?

The buyers argued that they had bought in a lawful way and paid for the land, at a time when the brothers' right came from wills nobody had challenged. The Court tested that against section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, which protects a transfer by an "ostensible owner" where the buyer, "after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith". All four parts must exist together: an ostensible owner, the consent of the real owners, payment, and good faith with reasonable care (para 13).

Here they did: the mutations were in the sons' names under the unchallenged wills, the buyers paid, and "the Purchasers exercised due diligence by approaching the revenue records for ascertaining title of the properties" (para 13). So the Court held that "despite the fact that sale by the sons was unauthorized and voidable, the sale per se could not be set aside or annulled" against the buyers (para 14).

And the sisters lost nothing: "The only viable solution appears to be that the sons be directed to pay for the equivalent of respective shares of the daughters in the said property in monetary terms". The sale price was on record, and the sons had kept and used all of it, so "The sons will pay mark up from the date of sale at the Bank rate to the daughters on their respective shares till the time of payment" (para 14). Everything else in the estate goes to all the sons and daughters by their shares under Sharia (para 14).

Why the will could not cut the daughters out

The Court relied on two rules of Muslim law as Mullah's Mohammadan Law states them: a bequest to an heir is not valid unless the other heirs consent after the testator's death, and a Muslim cannot bequeath more than a third of the estate (para 11). A will that settles the heirs' shares in advance, in favour of some of them, cannot stand: "The daughters were just as entitled as their brothers to a share in their father's businesses and other properties at the time the estate would have opened up" (para 12). Both wills "are contrary to the principles of Sharia and are, as a result, null and void" (para 12). For the one-third rule in more detail, see failegal.site/media/wasiyat.

Find rulings like this on FAI Legal

FAI Legal is a website: open failegal.site in your phone's browser, there is nothing to download. Ask your question in plain words, read section 41 on Statute Search, and see this judgment in full on Judgment Search. Your case may be different: talk to a lawyer about your own family's property.

The case at a glance

Facts

The father died on 2 June 1977, leaving properties and businesses to his widow, two sons and four daughters; registered wills of 1970 favoured the sons; the brothers sold some properties to buyers; the daughters sued on 13 December 2005; the trial court dismissed the suit on 21 March 2014 and the High Court decreed it on 30 June 2021, protecting the buyers (paras 3, 5, 10).

The question

Whether the wills complied with Sharia, what followed for the heirs if they did not, and whether the daughters' inheritance rights override the protection of bona fide purchasers under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act (para 9).

What the Court held

The wills were void; the purchasers were protected under section 41; the sons must pay the daughters the equivalent of their shares in the sold property, with mark-up from the date of sale at the bank rate until payment; the rest of the estate devolves on all the sons and daughters by Sharia. The daughters' appeal was partly allowed and the sons' appeal and the contempt appeal were dismissed (paras 12 to 18).

Why

A will that regulates heirs' shares in advance in favour of some heirs is not Sharia-compliant (paras 11 and 12); the four ingredients of section 41 co-existed, the buyers having checked the revenue records, which showed the sons as owners under unchallenged wills (para 13); the sale was unauthorized and voidable but could not be set aside against bona fide purchasers, so the sons, who received and used the whole price, pay the daughters in money with mark-up (para 14).

Limits

The buyers were protected because all four parts of section 41 were met, including reasonable care and good faith; a buyer who did not check, or knew of the sisters' rights, may not be protected. The Court did not decide the sons' late claim that some properties were bought with their own money, because it was not raised in the lower courts (para 15).

The law it relies on

What this does not mean

• It does not mean brothers can sell a sister's share and simply pay her later: the buyers here were protected only because they checked the record and acted in good faith, and the brothers had to pay mark-up from the date of sale. Depriving a woman of her inheritance by deceitful or illegal means is also a crime under section 498-A PPC.
• It does not mean every buyer is safe: section 41 protects a buyer only when all four parts are met, including reasonable care and good faith.
• It does not mean a Muslim can never make a will: a bequest to a non-heir of up to a third is allowed; what this will could not do was favour some heirs over others.
• The reel's opening scene, a field with a SOLD board, is a drawing of the question, not the case's own scene; the case concerned several properties and businesses in Quetta.

Questions people ask

Sources

• A v. B (names withheld), Civil Appeals Nos. 10-Q and 1273 of 2021 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 31 March 2022)
  A will favouring the sons is void; buyers who checked the revenue record in good faith are protected under s.41 TPA; the sons pay the daughters the equivalent of their shares with mark-up at the bank rate from the date of sale.
• Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 41 text checked in FAI Statute Search, 9 November 2026 Pakistan Code
• Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Section 498-A text checked in FAI Statute Search, 9 November 2026 Pakistan Code

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