MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Another vs MUHAMMAD KHAN
This matter concerns a petition for review of a Supreme Court order dated 20-2-1980, which had previously upheld the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Additional District Judge regarding a pre-emption claim. The core legal question was whether a pedigree-table (Exh. P. 1), in the absence of oral testimony proving its contents, could be relied upon to establish the relationship between the pre-emptor and the vendor to prove a superior right of pre-emption. The petitioner contended that the pedigree-table, being part of the record-of-rights, carries a statutory presumption of correctness, a point previously overlooked by the Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the issue regarding the evidentiary value of the pedigree-table as part of the record-of-rights required further consideration. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous order, allowed the review petition, and granted leave to appeal. The key principle established is that a pedigree-table forming part of the record-of-rights is entitled to a statutory presumption of correctness, which must be duly considered by the courts when determining the relationship between parties in pre-emption cases.
- Does a pedigree-table that forms part of the record-of-rights carry a statutory presumption of correctness?
- Can a court overlook the evidentiary value of a document forming part of the record-of-rights in a pre-emption case?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This is a petition seeking review of this Court's order dated 20-2-1980. By the aforesaid order it was observed that the High Court agreeing with the Additional District Judge held that the pre--emptor had failed to satisfactorily establish the factum of his relationship between him and the vendor, so as to prove for superior right.
2. The relationship had been sought to be proved by producing a pedigree-table (Exh. P. 1). However, no one had appeared in Court to prove the pedigree table and to state that the relationship of the parties was correctly entered [therein. The learned Additional District Judge, had taken the view that in the absence of any such affirmative of evidence the pedigree-table, by itself, could not prove the factum of relation--ship, which view was upheld by the High Court and this Court had also declined to interfere with it.
3. The submission that the pedigree-table formed a part of the record-of---rights to which astatutory presumption of correctness is attached is sup--ported by the judgment in Wali Muhammad v. Government of West Pakistan and others (PLD 1980 Pesh. 119) and the point raised did require consideration, which was overlooked.
4. We would, therefore, allow this petition for review and recall out order dated 20-2-1980 and grant leave to appeal.
5. Security Rs. 2,000.
6. Notice to the respondent in the stay matter.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mst. SHAFEEN AKHTAR vs Malik MUMRAIZ and others 2014 P Cr. L J 1415
- Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM and 4 others vs MAQSOOD AHMAD and 15 others 2005 YLR 2328
- SAIF ULLAH Versus State 2005 YLR 2338