LAHORE - A Full Bench of the Supreme Court while deciding an important point regarding inheritance of the women has observed that immediately on the death of the father, daughters become legal heirs of his property. The Bench headed by Justice M Javed Buttar and comprising Justice Muhammad Furrukh Mahmud and Justice Sayed Zahid Hussain said through the detailed judgment that the daughters immediately succeed to the left over property of their father immediately on his death and nothing more was required to be done. After the daughters had become co-sharer in the property of their father, it does not make any difference if their name is not included as such in the revenue record. That lapse would not take away their right to inheritance under the Islamic law, the Court said referring to Abdul Ghafoor case of 1985 and others which have elaborately dealt with the right of female co-sharers. It said the devolution of property through Islamic inheritance takes place immediately without any intervention. The appeal was moved against the right of seven sisters to a huge property of their father who died in 1930 but in the mutation carried out in 1931, excluded their name and that of the widow in the official record where only three sons of the deceased were mentioned. After a threadbare scrutiny of the matter, the court said if at all there was any obscurity in the past about the status of the females and their rights, particularly about inheritance, the same stood removed. Once it was established that they were entitled to inherit the left over property of their deceased father, they became co-owners of the same to the extent of their respective share without any delay. It said each co-sharer is deemed to be owner in the joint property and any one of them cannot act in a manner which may constitute an invasion on the rights of the other co-sharers. As to protection available under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882 in case the ostensible owner has sold out the property while the name of females inheritors were not on the record, the court said in order to invoke this provision, it was necessary that ownership of the transferor should be consented to or implied by the real owner that the transfer should be considered and the transferee must have acted in good faith taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor has power to transfer. As to the principle that the innocent buyer should not suffer for the fraud practiced by the seller, the court said, doctrine of caveat emptor that is, 'let the buyer beware would apply in that event. That, it has to be kept in view that the purchaser would blame to himself if he is wronged. It is a well-established principle that a vendor cannot pass on to the vendee anything better than he himself holds. Therefore it is the vendee who is to apply maximum care before going for a transaction of sale/purchase.