NOOR BEGUM vs BARKAT ALI
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute regarding inheritance rights to the estate of the deceased, Ahmad Ali. The respondent claimed to be a distant kindred of the deceased, asserting his father was the brother of the deceased's maternal grandfather. While the trial and appellate courts concurrently held that the respondent failed to prove the relationship, the Lahore High Court, in revision, reviewed the evidence, including pedigree tables and admissions, and ruled in favor of the respondent. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed in revision. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts failed to give legal effect to the presumptions arising from the revenue record and established pedigree. Consequently, the High Court was competent to interfere with the findings of fact to correct the legal error. The Supreme Court affirmed that substantial justice had been done and refused to grant leave to appeal, establishing that a High Court may interfere in revision when lower courts fail to properly apply legal presumptions to established facts.
- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in civil revision proceedings if lower courts failed to give legal effect to established evidence?
- Is a High Court competent to unsettle a finding of fact in revision if the lower courts ignored legal presumptions arising from the revenue record?
- Does the failure of lower courts to apply legal presumptions to established facts justify interference by the High Court in revision?
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, an unsuccessful defendant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 22-10-1980 whereby a revision petition filed by the respondent, was allowed against a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below and the decree in terms claimed by the respondent was granted to him.
2. On the death of Ahmad Ali, the husband of the petitioner, his entire landed property was mutated in the name of the petitioner on the assumption that he had no other heir who could possible inherit. The efforts of the respondent to have the matter re-opened in the revenue hierarchy failed.
3. He thereupon instituted a civil suit claiming himself to be a distant kindred of Ahmad Ali and as such entitled to 3/4 share out of his estate. The petitioner denied any such relationship. The exact relationship claimed by the respondent was that his father Ilam Din was the real brother of Gohra, the maternal grandfather of Ahmad Ali. His claim was that Allah Dad was the father of Ahmad Ali and Mst. Budhi was his mother. The trial Court held the relationship as not proved because the death certificate of Mst. Budhi was found not to relate to her. The appellate Court also found this relationship as not proved from the documentary evidence though it was found proved on record that Gohra was the grandfather of Ahmad Ali and Gohra and Ilam Din were brothers and Ilam Din was the father of Barkat. The area of doubt was that the petitioner claimed Mst. Hussaina to be the mother of Ahmad Ali while the plaintiff claimed Mst. Budhi to be his mother. The High Court took stock of the entire evidence on the record and found good material on the record in the form of pedigree table, coupled with the admission of the parties and the oral evidence establishing the relationship and, therefore, allowed the revision petition.
4. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a concurrent finding of fact should not have been unsettled in revision proceedings because even "clumsy blunders" committed in recording the finding of fact are immune from such interference. It is also contended that even on facts, the relationship alleged by the respondent was not proved.
5. We have examined the evidence on record and find that the presumption raised from the revenue record, namely, the pedigree table and the admissions of the parties was not given legal effect by the two Courts. Once it is established that Ilam Din was the father of Barkat and he was brother of Gohra and that Gohra and no other was the grandfather of Ahmad Ali, the relationship claimed by the respondent stood established. The legal presumptions arising from such a situation had to be given due effect in recording the judgment and the decree. That having not been done by the two Courts, the High Court in civil revision was competent to unsettle such a finding of fact. In any case, we find that it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal for substantial justice has been done.
6. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.