ZAREEN BIBI and others vs INAYAT BEGUM and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged concurrent findings of fact by the trial court, the appellate court, and the Lahore High Court, which had rejected the petitioners' claim regarding the marital status and parentage of the respondents. The petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Nur Muhammad, argued that the respondent Inayat Begum was not his wife and that the other respondents were not his children, relying on an alleged admission made by Inayat Begum before a Magistrate. The Supreme Court observed that the alleged statement had never been duly proved as a document in the proceedings. Furthermore, the respondent Inayat Begum was never summoned to the witness box to clarify or prove the alleged statement. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of evidence to substantiate the petitioners' claim, the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts were sound. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with such concurrent findings and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts when the evidence relied upon by the petitioner was never duly proved?
- Is an unproved statement allegedly made before a Magistrate sufficient to overturn concurrent findings of fact regarding marital status?
- Does the failure to summon a party to the witness box to prove an alleged admission undermine a claim based on that admission?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioners who claim that Inayat Begum respondent as well as Umar Draz and Mst. Kishwar Sultan respondents are not the wife, and son and daughter of Nur Muhammad deceased. Mst. Zareen Bibi petitioner is daughter of Nur Muhammad from a different wife namely Mst. Nur Bakht petitioner. Their main case was that Mst. Inayat Begum respondent in her statement before a Magistrate had admitted that she was the wife of one Nasrullah. But this statement had at no stage been considered as a duly proved document. Mst. Inayat Begum respondent did not appear in the witness-box at all nor she had ever been summoned at any stage of the litigation to prove the alleged statement made by her. This was the reason why the trial Court, appellate Court as well as learned Single Judge of the Lahore Higth Court, Lahore in R.SA. Gave concurrent findings of fact in this case as against the present petitioners. Since this is the position no interference is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed.