Mohd. Ashraf & Another v. Sadiq (Since Deceased) through LRs & Others, 2026

Akkal, a member of the Meo community, died issueless, survived by his widow, Smt. Rehmani.

The property in dispute: 42 Kanals 19 Marlas of agricultural land.

Plaintiff (collateral heir) claimed under Meo customary law that a widow acquires only a life estate, and the property should revert to collaterals.

During her lifetime, Rehmani executed a registered sale deed (04.01.1982) to the defendants.

Plaintiff challenged the sale alleging:

• Lack of legal necessity

• Absence of consideration

• Violation of customary restrictions limiting widow’s authority to alienate property.

Trial Court & First Appellate Court held the widow could not alienate the property without collateral consent.

The High Court allowed the appeal, overturning the decisions of the lower courts.

Non-ancestral property inherited by a widow can be freely alienated; customary restrictions are constitutionally impermissible.

Historical customary law primarily addressed ancestral property, not self-acquired or non-ancestral property.

Earlier precedents (e.g., Smt. Hussain Bai v. Kalu, 1969 PLR 819) misapplied customs to non-ancestral property, contrary to Supreme Court guidance (e.g., Jai Kaur v. Sher Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1118).

Customs restricting proprietary rights of women based on gender or marital status violate Articles 14 and 15.

The sale by Rehmani was for legally recognized necessity – marriage expenses of her granddaughter.

Collateral consent is not required for alienation of non-ancestral property.

Affirms constitutional primacy over customary law when it discriminates against women.

Distinguishes ancestral vs non-ancestral property in the context of women’s rights.

Emphasizes individual autonomy of widows in property management.

Aligns with progressive interpretation of Articles 14 & 15 to eliminate gender-based discrimination in inheritance.