Warisi mutation: an absent daughter, a helpful clerk, and a gold ring
An application for a warisi mutation is filed for the estate of Malik Ghulam Rasool, who died leaving 120 acres of agricultural land in Chak 92/GB (1 acre = 8 kanals). The heirs stated in the application are his widow, his mother, two sons and one daughter. The daughter married and settled abroad eight years ago and has taken no part in the proceedings. Her elder brother, who is also the applicant, produces a handwritten note saying she has 'given up her share' and asks that the entire land be entered in the names of the two sons. The dealing clerk is a close relative of the applicant and has already drafted the mutation in that form. While the file is with the Tehsildar, the widow calls at his office and offers a gold ring as 'salami' for expediting the case, saying the sons have threatened to turn her out of the house if the mutation goes against her. No written objection has yet been filed by anyone.
1. State the correct shares of each heir in acres and kanals, showing the reasoning for each fraction.
Read the worked answer
The estate is 120 acres = 960 kanals.
Widow - 1/8. Her fixed share is one-eighth because the deceased left children; had there been no child or agnatic descendant she would take one-quarter. 1/8 of 120 = 15 acres (120 kanals).
Mother - 1/6. Her fixed share is one-sixth because there are children; without children she would take one-third. 1/6 of 120 = 20 acres (160 kanals).
Residue - 85 acres - to the children in a 2:1 ratio. Two sons and one daughter make five portions: each son takes two, the daughter one. 85 / 5 = 17 acres per portion. Each son therefore takes 34 acres (272 kanals) and the daughter 17 acres (136 kanals).
Check: 15 + 20 + 34 + 34 + 17 = 120 acres; 120 + 160 + 272 + 272 + 136 = 960 kanals. The figures reconcile to the last kanal, which is what makes the mutation defensible on appeal. The daughter's share cannot be reduced by anything short of a valid relinquishment; absence abroad does not extinguish it.
2. How should the Tehsildar deal with the handwritten 'relinquishment', the related clerk and the offer of the ring?
Read the worked answer
The note: a handwritten note produced by an interested party is not a relinquishment. A valid tanazul requires the daughter's own consent, evidenced by a registered document or a properly authenticated power of attorney executed in her favour and verified through the consular channel, with identity established. Until then the mutation must be entered showing her share; if she later relinquishes, a separate mutation in favour of the other heirs can be recorded. Recording the land to the sons now would make the tehsil a party to depriving an absent woman.
The clerk: he is a close relative of the applicant and has already prepared the draft in the applicant's preferred form. Remove him from the file by written order, have the draft he prepared placed on record as part of the file, and assign the case to another official. The appearance of bias, once visible on the file, is enough to vitiate the mutation.
The ring: refuse it, do not touch it, and record the offer in the order sheet in neutral language, along with the widow's statement about the threat to turn her out. Public servants may not accept such gifts. Advise her to file a written objection, and note in the file that her statement was taken in the absence of the applicants.
3. Which ethical principles are engaged, and how should the widow's fear of being turned out affect the mutation order?
Read the worked answer
Three principles are engaged.
Amanat - the revenue record is held in trust for every heir, including one who is not present to speak for herself. A mutation that follows the loudest voice in the room is a breach of that trust regardless of who signs it.
Conflict of interest and impartiality - the clerk's relationship to the applicant is not misconduct in itself, but leaving him on the file converts a routine case into one that can be reopened years later. The remedy is structural (reassign), not merely admonitory.
Integrity in small things - the ring is offered at a moment of vulnerability, which is precisely when an official's refusal must be clearest and on the record.
The widow's fear does not change the shares - inheritance is fixed by law and neither threat nor sympathy alters it - but it does affect what the order should say. The order should record her statement, direct that possession of her share not be disturbed without a civil decree, and inform her of her right to file an objection. The Tehsildar cannot grant her protection of possession, but he can ensure the record does not become the instrument of her dispossession.