Munir Hussain, etc. vs Riffat Shamim, etc.
This matter arises from a civil petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge the High Court's judgment regarding the paternity of respondent No. 2, whom the petitioners alleged was not the daughter of their deceased brother Azhar Hussain, but of Muhammad Zareef, in order to secure a larger share in the estate of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as siblings of the deceased, could maintain a suit for a negative declaration challenging the paternity and legitimacy of another person under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that challenging another person's paternity does not constitute an assertion of one's own legal character under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, following the principle established in Laila Qayyum v. Fawad Qayum (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 449). The key principle laid down is that plaintiffs lack the requisite legal character under section 42 to maintain a suit seeking a negative declaration to deny the paternity of another individual.
- Whether a suit for a negative declaration challenging another person's paternity is maintainable under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
- Does challenging the paternity of another person amount to an assertion of one's own legal character?
- Can siblings maintain a declaratory suit to question the paternity of a daughter acknowledged by the deceased father during his lifetime?
- Section 42, Specific Relief Act 1877
ORDER
Qazi Faez Isa, J.
C.M.A. No. 3492/2022: Through this application the petitioners seek permission to array Tuba Sahab (respondent No. 2) as the daughter of Muhammad Zareef.
2. The petitioners had filed a suit alleging that Tuba Sahab was not the daughter of Azhar Hussain but of Muhammad Zareef. However, the learned Judge of the High Court held that Tuba Sahab was in fact the daughter of Azhar Hussain. Nothing much turns on this application as the petition for leave to appeal has been filed within time and the application could only be granted if the impugned judgment of the High Court was to be set aside. Therefore, even though the petition for leave to appeal has not been numbered we, after the learned counsel said he was ready to proceed with the case on merits, proceeded to hear the petition. The office is directed to number the civil petition for leave to appeal ('CPLA').
3. CPLA No. 3842/2022: The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are the siblings of Azhar Hussain who died issueless on 4 June 2013. The learned counsel submits that Azhar Hussain adhered to the Sunni Hanafi fiqh of Islamic Shariah, therefore, if Tuba Sahab is taken to be the daughter of Azhar Hussain then their share in the estate of Azhar Hussain would be significantly reduced. It is admitted that Azhar Hussain was married to Riffat Shamim (respondent No. 1). The case of the petitioners (plaintiffs in the suit) was that Tuba Sahab was actually the daughter of Muhammad Zareef and not of Azhar Hussain. The suit was filed on 29 January 2014, that is, about seven months after the death of Azhar Hussain and at a time when Tuba Sahab was, as per learned counsel, aged about 17 years. Admittedly, Tuba Sahab was brought up by Azhar Hussain and Riffat Shamim as their daughter and as long as Azhar Hussain lived her paternity was not questioned by the petitioners who, for the first time, did so after the father, Azhar Hussain, had departed from this world. The mother (respondent No. 1) testified that Tuba Sahab was her and Azhar Hussain's daughter.
4. The learned Judge of the High Court had referred to a number of decisions including the decision in the case of Laila Qayyu m v Fawad Qayum (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 449) which had considered in detail the scope of a declaratory suit filed under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and like in that case the paternity of another was denied by the plaintiffs. In other words the plaintiffs (petitioners herein) through their suit sought a negative declaration. After considering the scope of the said section 42 and precedents this Court held in Laila Qayyum's case that to challenge another's paternity/legitimacy was not an assertion of one's own legal character in terms of section 42. However, a person whose legal character, including paternity, was being denied such person could file a suit to claim it, but the instant case is not such a case. In Laila Qayyum's case the plaintiffs lacked legal character under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and the same principle is attracted in this case. The learned counsel has also not been able to distinguish the decision in Laila Qayyum's case from the instant one.
5. In the impugned judgment the learned Judge had correctly applied the law, which had been interpreted in the case of Laila Qayyum. Therefore, to grant leave is not warranted and, consequently, the petition (numbered as CPLA No. 3842/2022) and CMA No. 3492/2022 are dismissed, but with no order as to costs as caveat was not filed by any respondent. Copy of this order be sent to respondents No. 1 and 2.