GHULAM RASUL vs MUHAMMAD BIBI
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision petition regarding an inheritance dispute. The core legal question was whether the respondent, Mst. Muhammad Bibi, was the legally wedded wife of the deceased, Ghulam Haider, and thus entitled to a share in his estate. The petitioner contended that the deceased was a 'Sainlog' who had never married, challenging the inheritance mutation that granted the respondent a one-fourth share. The Supreme Court observed that the appellate court had relied on both oral testimony from the Lambardar and other landowners, as well as documentary evidence, to conclude that the respondent had lived with the deceased as his wife for over 25 years. The High Court upheld this finding of fact. The Supreme Court held that since the lower courts had concurrently decided this question of fact based on evidence, there was no ground for interference. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming that findings of fact supported by evidence are generally not subject to reappraisal in leave to appeal proceedings.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding marital status in a leave to appeal petition?
- Is oral testimony from local residents and landowners sufficient to establish the status of a wife in inheritance proceedings?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that there were three brothers namely Ghulam Rasul petitioner, Ghulam Qadir and Ghulam Haider. Ghulam Qadir died in 1977 and his inheritance was sanctioned in the names of Ghulam Haider and Ghulam Rasul petitioner in equal shares. Sometime later also in 1977 died Ghulam Haider leaving behind Mst. Muhammad Bibi respondent his widow. Thus two mutations were entered, one pertaining to inheritance of Ghulam Qadir i.e, Mutation No, 209 and other pertaining to the inheritance of Ghulam Haider i. e. Mutation No, 210. Both were sanctioned on 28 January, 1978. Mutation No, 210 pertaining to the estate of Ghulam Haider, out of which 3/4th share was given to the petitioner and 1/4th share was given to Mst. Muhammad Bibi respondent, his widow, as he had died issueless. This mutation i.e, No,210 was challenged by the present petitioner before the Civil Judge on the ground that Mst. Muhammad Bibi respondent was not the wife of Ghulam Haider deceased as he had never married. The suit was decreed but on appeal of Mst.
3. Muhammad Bibi respondent the judgment of the trial Court was reversed. Thereafter the revision petition filed by the present petitioner against the appellate Court's judgment was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present petition.
4. ' It is contended by learned counsel that according to the evidence on record Ghulam Haider deceased was a Sainlog and had never married. But this argument is not supported by the evidence on record. The Lambardar and the other owners of the estate had deposed that the respondent had lived with the deceased Ghulam Haider as his wife for more than 25 years. It was on such evidence supported by documentary evidence on the basis of which the appellate Court had arrived at the conclusion that the respondent was the wife of. Ghulam Haider deceased and therefore entitled to 1/4th share in his estate. This finding of fact has been upheld by the High Court.
5. Since the question of fact has been decided against the petitioner no case is made out for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.