SHAHADAT and others vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' civil revision regarding a suit for declaration of title over disputed land. The petitioners, claiming to be the sole sons of the deceased owner, Allah Dad, sought to exclude the respondents, Muhammad Hayat and Sikandar, from the inheritance. The core legal question was whether the respondents were the legitimate sons of Allah Dad, or if they were the sons of another man, Fattu, as the petitioners alleged. The trial court, the District Judge, and the Lahore High Court all concurrently found as a matter of fact that the respondents were indeed the sons of Allah Dad and Mst. Bibi, following her divorce from Fattu and subsequent marriage to Allah Dad. The Supreme Court held that since there was a unanimous finding of fact by the three lower courts regarding the respondents' paternity, there was no ground for interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are generally not disturbed in appellate jurisdiction.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding paternity?
- Does the acknowledgment of paternity by a deceased father hold legal weight when the mother was previously married to another man?
- Is a civil revision maintainable against concurrent findings of fact regarding title and inheritance?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioners and is directed against order dated 10th May, 1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that, the petitioners brought a suit for declaration of title against Muhammad Hayat and Sikandar respondents as well as Nura respondent claiming ownership of the disputed land. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge Faisalabad. Thereafter the petitioners filed civil revision in the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed by learned Single Judge of that Court.
3. ' The land in dispute originally belonged to Allah Dad who died in July, 1971. The petitioners are sons of Allah Dad by Mst. Koori and their case was that they were the only sons of Allah Dad and therefore entitled to succeed to his estate to the exclusion of the respondents. The main question which required determination in this case was as to whether or not Muhammad Hayat and Sikandar respondents were also sons of Allah Dad deceased. According to the petitioners they both were sons of Fattu and Mst. Bibi. Fattu had died 6/7 years before the institution of the suit in 1973.
4. The petitioners' claim was that Fattu never divorced Mst. Bibi nor Mst. Bibi was ever married to Allah Dad deceased. Therefore even if Allah Dad had acknowledged Muhammad Hayat and Sikandar respondents as his sons it made no difference in the eyes of law. The findings of all the Courts below as well as the Lahore High Court, Lahore on this question of fact are against the petitioners.
5. These are to the effect that only Nura respondent was son of Fattu and Mst. Bibi. Thereafter Mst. Bibi got divorce from Fattu and had married Allah Dad. Thus Muhammad Hayat and Sikandar respondents were the sons of Allah Dad by Mst. Bibi. Since there is unanimous finding of fact of the three Courts on this point as against the petitioners, in our view the impugned order calls for no interference. As a result this petition is dismissed.