Mst. AZEEM BIBI vs KAMMON MAI alias KARAM ELAHI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a dispute between two sisters over a will executed by their father in favour of the respondent. The petitioner successfully challenged the will before the lower two courts, but the High Court set aside those judgments in a civil revision filed by the respondent. The core legal question involves the validity of the disputed will and whether the petitioner had consented to its execution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of the will and the petitioner's consent thereto, reinforced by the petitioner's prolonged silence of nearly a quarter of a century, are conclusive and not open to interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming that unexplained prolonged delay and tacit consent preclude a party from challenging a testamentary disposition.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of a will and consent can be interfered with in civil revision?
- Does prolonged silence and delay of nearly a quarter of a century bar a party from challenging a will?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the execution of the disputed will and the petitioner's consent stand concluded by findings of fact?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL AULLAH, J.--Both the parties are sisters inter se. Their father made the disputed will in favour of the respondent.The petitioner succeeded before the lower two Courts in avoiding the effect of the will but failed before the High Court in a Civil Revision, filed by the respondent.
2. The questions; whether the disputed will was made in resondent's favour and whether the petitioner had consented to it at the revelent time now stand concluded by findings of fact.The findings in this behalf get support from the fact that the petitioner kept silent about it for nearby about a quarter of century. To us also, it appears that she had consented to it. No justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal is refused.