Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI And Another vs GHULAM HUSSAIN And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute regarding the inheritance of landed property left by the deceased, Jewan. The petitioners, claiming as heirs, asserted the deceased was a Shia, while the respondents, claiming as collaterals, argued he was a Sunni. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court all concurrently found that the deceased was a Sunni by faith, leading to the dismissal of the petitioners' suit and subsequent appeals. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that certain documentary evidence, specifically a survey list and a register from an 'Anjuman Shian', had been wrongly rejected by the lower courts, citing Section 11 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court observed that this specific legal plea regarding the admissibility of evidence had not been raised in the lower courts. Furthermore, the Court held that the determination of the deceased's faith was a concurrent finding of fact by three lower courts. Consequently, the Court declined to re-appraise the evidence or interfere with the concurrent findings, ultimately dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
- Can a party raise a new legal plea regarding the admissibility of evidence before the Supreme Court if it was not raised in the lower courts?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding of fact made by three lower courts regarding the religious faith of a deceased person?
- Is the determination of a person's religious faith for inheritance purposes considered a question of fact?
- Section 11, Evidence Act 1872
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 26-4-1980 whereby the petitioners' R . S . A . Was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition, are briefly that Jewan son of Imam Din died in 1971 leaving behind landed property in Village Seroba, Tehsil and District Sialkot. Inheritance was mutated in the name of the petitioners as his heirs on the assumption that he was a Shia by faith. The respondents who claim themselves to be the collaterals of the deceased, filed a suit for possession of 3/8 share of the property left by Jewan, deceased on the ground that he was riot a Shia but was a Sunni by faith. Evidence was produced by both sides. It was held by the learned trial Court that Jewan was Sunni by faith. The suit was accordingly decree on 1-10-1974.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sialkot on 24-10-1977. The petitioners then filed an R . S . A .
But the High Court also concurred with the finding of fact arrived at by the two Courts below to the effect that Jewan was a Sunni by faith.
4. The petitioners have now come up to this Court through the present petition for leave to appeal.
The petitioners' counsel submitted that Maqbul Hussain, D.W. 1 had produced a Survey List of Shia living in the locality and also a Register maintained by 'Anjuman Shian' of the area, and that Jewan was shown as a Shia in the aforementioned Survey List as well as the Register. He submitted that this evidence had been wrongly rejected by the Courts below. He submitted further that the evidence produced by Maqbul Husain D.W. 1 was relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act and had been wrongly rejected by the, learned Courts below.
5. We notice that the petitioners have not raised the last mentioned contention in this form in any of the Courts below, but what was urged before the first and second Appellate Courts was only that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Jewan was Shia. We would, therefore, not permit the petitioners to raise the aforementioned legal plea at this late stage. The question whether Jewan was a Shia or a Sunni at the time of his death is one of fact on which a concurrent finding of fact i.e. That he was a Sunni has been given by the three Courts below. We, therefore, decline to embark on the re--appraisal of the evidence for reconsidering the correctness of the concurrent finding of fact.
The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD TAUQEER vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And Other 2001 MLD 1650