ZULFIQAR AL! vs GHULAM RASOOL and others
This matter concerns a dispute over the inheritance of land following the death of Muhammad Khan, where the petitioner, Zulfiqar Ali, claimed a one-third share based on a will executed in his favor. The core legal question involves whether the lower appellate court and the High Court erred in their findings regarding the validity and proof of the will, specifically whether they misread or failed to read the record concerning the production and admission of the will's copy. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the trial court had found in favor of the petitioner regarding the genuineness of the will, and that the parties had previously agreed to treat the copy of the will as evidence. The Court identified that the High Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the original will was missing and unproven, despite the record indicating otherwise. The principle highlighted is that judgments based on the misreading or non-reading of material evidence, particularly regarding agreed-upon exhibits, are subject to re-appraisal by the Supreme Court.
- Can a judgment be set aside if it is based on the misreading or non-reading of the record?
- Does the agreement between parties to treat a copy of a document as evidence preclude a court from later rejecting it for lack of the original?
- Is the Supreme Court empowered to re-appraise evidence when lower courts have failed to consider material facts on the record?
ORDER
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---The case of the petitioner before the Revenue Authorities from the very start after the death of Muhammad Khan and in the Civil Court was that Muhammad Khan executed a will in his favour transferring him 1/3rd share of the land left by him (Muhammad Khan). The report to the Patwari for entry of mutation of inheritance was made by Zulfiqar the claimant under the will and not by any of the sons of the deceased. During the mutation, this will was produced before the Revenue Officer attesting the mutation, one of the sons of the deceased appeared and did not challenge the execution or genuineness of the will but on the contrary stated that Muhammad Khan deceased their father by executing the said will had deprived them of their inheritance rights.
The copy of the will was produced by the respondents before the trail Court and it was agreed between the parties that the same may be read as part of the evidence. The learned Judge of the High Court has observed on the assumption as if there was a dispute about the existence of original will, but the same had not been produced, therefore, its execution had not been proved whereas according to the record as noted above, copy of the will was produced by the respondents with the understanding that the same may be read as part of the evidence. One of the marginal witnesses of the will namely Rafique Shah who appeared as D.W. Stated that this will was executed by Muhammad Khan, deceased and findings by the trial Court regarding plea of the respondents of forged nature of the will were returned in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. It has been inter alia contended that the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court are based on misreading and non-reading of the record.
2. Leave is granted, inter alia, to consider the above mentioned contentions and re-appraisal of evidence.