GUL MUHAMMAD vs IBRAHIM and others
This petition arises from a civil suit filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that respondent No.1 is not the son of the deceased Meer Muhammad and is thus not entitled to inherit his property, rendering the inheritance mutation void. The core legal question concerns the legitimacy and paternity of respondent No.1 in relation to the deceased and whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts could be disturbed. All lower courts recorded consistent findings of fact after careful appraisal of evidence, determining that respondent No.1 was indeed the son of Meer Muhammad and Mst. Bakhtawar. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact did not suffer from any misreading, misconstruction, or non-reading of material evidence, and the petitioner failed to point out any illegality. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent factual findings on paternity and inheritance supported by evidence cannot be interfered with in the absence of legal infirmity.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding paternity and inheritance can be interfered with by the Supreme Court without proof of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Is a person born from a mother during the subsistence of her marriage entitled to inherit from the registered father?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- This petition has arisen from a suit filed by the petitioner for declaration that respondent No,1 Ibrahim being not the son of Meer Muhammad was not entitled to inherit his property, therefore, mutation of inheritance in which he had been given share in the property of Meer Muhammad as his son was void and ineffective against his rights. According to the case of the petitioner, Meer Muhammad deceased had two wives Mst. Bakhtawar and Mst. Bhaqqri.
Petitioner and respondent No,2 were born from Mst. Bhaqqri whereas Ibrahim was born allegedly after Nikah of Mst. Bakhtawar with Noor Muhammad, therefore, he was not son of Meer Muhammad According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Mst. Bakhtawar was divorced by Meer Muhammad who thereafter married Noor Muhammad.
2. All the Courts below after elaborate and careful appraisal of evidence have recorded findings of fact against the petitioner that Ibrahim, respondent No,1 was the son of Meer Muhammad from Mst.
Bakhtawar, therefore, rightly given share in his inheritance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made an application for permission to produce additional evidence.
The additional evidence which the petitioner wanted to produce was Talaqnama allegedly executed by Meer Muhammad through which Mst. Bakhtawar A was given divorce. It was dated 10- 9-1930. According to learned counsel, Mst. Bakhtawar thereafter married Noor Muhammad on 10- 12-1930. When questioned, he admitted that so far as the factum of divorce of Mst. Bakhtawar was concerned, it was not disputed fact and the only question before the Courts below was whether Ibrahim had been born from Mst. Bakhtawar during the subsistence of Nikah with Meer Muhammad which question had been decided against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading, misconstruction or non-reading of any material piece of evidence, therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality calling for interference by this Court.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and .