ZILADAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL SHAKUR AND ANOTHER
This petition arises from a judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' Regular First Appeal concerning agricultural land previously owned by one Ismail, who died issueless. The core legal question was whether the petitioners successfully established their status as collaterals of the deceased owner entitled to inherit the estate upon the death of the widow, Mst. Fazeelat Begum, and whether the mutation in her favor was void. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof required to establish their collateral status, as their oral testimony lacked first-hand knowledge of the deceased's parentage, whereas the respondents produced contradictory evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the petitioners had not proven their relationship to the last male owner.
- Whether the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs claiming as collaterals to establish their parentage and relationship to the last male owner?
- Can oral testimony by witnesses lacking first-hand information regarding parentage suffice to prove collateral succession?
- Whether a mutation of property in favor of a deceased owner's widow can be successfully challenged without proof of collateral status?
ORDER
' MiAN BURHANUDDiN KHAN, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 5-2-1983 passed in R. F. A. No, 177 of 1982.
2. Subject-matter of this petition relates to agricultural land measuring 217 Kanals 4 Marlas situate in Chak Pension Khawaran, Tehsil and District Kasur which was owned by Ismail son of Fatiya who died issueless leaving behind Mst. Fazeelat Begum his widow predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and the petitioners who are allegedly the collaterals of Ismail. The Assistant Collector Grade H vide Mutation No, 282, dated 21-5-1973 mutated the whole property of Ismail in the name of Mst. Fazeelat Begum his widow. The petitioners who claimed to be the collaterals of Ismail, feeling aggrieved of the order of Assistant Collector, filed an appeal before the Collector, Kasur who directed the petitioners to seek their remedy in a civil Court. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner in revision who, by order dated 27-6-1974 upheld the order of the learned Collector. Thereafter the petitioners filed a suit for possession and declaration in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kasur, which was decreed vide judgment dated 16-2- 1982. Respondents then preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge which was accepted by the learned District Judge, Kasur setting aside the judgment and decree of the Court below. The case was, however, remanded to learned Civil Judge, Kasur to hear the arguments afresh for proper and legal findings on all the issues framed. The learned Civil Judge, after due compliance with the remand order, dismissed the suit of the petitioners. R. F. A.
Was filed in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed in limine.
3. Learned counsel contended that Mst. Fazeelat Begum widow of Ismail was not entitled to acquire the entire estate of her husband and, therefore, Mutation No, 282, dated 21-5-1973 was void and ineffective on the rights of the petitioners ; that the petitioners had established their rights as collaterals of Ismail and could claim their share even earlier and after the death of Mst. Fazeelat Begum. We have considered the arguments and find that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners are the collaterals of Ismail. The oral evidence led by the petitioners consists of statements of A Abdul Ghafoor P. W. 1 Ibrahim, P. W. 2 and Ziladar. The last mentioned is one of the present petitioners. All the three had stated that Ismail the last male owner was son of Fateh Muhammad alias Fatiya who was the son of Anwar Khan and Anwar Khan was son of Jogi. In rebuttal the respondents examined four witnesses who stated that Jogi was not the ancestor of Ismail but Ismail was descendant of one Walya Khan. It has rightly been held in the impugned order that onus lay on the petitioners to establish their claim. None of the petitioners examined knew or had the first hand information regarding the parentage of Ismail. We agree with the finding of the High Court. Petition is dismissed.