BASHIR AHMED and 3 others vs RAZIA BIBI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the High Court, whereby a revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts was dismissed. The core legal question concerned the establishment of family relationship and inheritance rights, specifically whether the plaintiff was the legitimate granddaughter of the deceased landowner, and whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding such relationship warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that where the lower courts have concurrently found the existence of direct relationship based on admissible documentary evidence and competent oral testimony from witnesses possessing special means of knowledge, such concurrent findings of fact are unexceptionable and cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below regarding family lineage and relationship, supported by reliable evidence, are binding and immune from interference under revisional jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence.
- Are concurrent findings of fact regarding family relationship open to interference in revisional jurisdiction?
- Can documents admitted in evidence without objection at trial be challenged subsequently in higher forums?
- Whether testimony of witnesses having special means of knowledge is sufficient to prove pedigree and descent?
ORDER
' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and order dated 17-7-1998 whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioners assailing the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge affirmed in appeal was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the institution of this petition are that one Meera, maternal grandfather of respondent Mst. Razia Bibi died on 2-7-1969. Mutation of his inheritance was attested on 28-3-1970 in favour of the petitioners. Mst. Saboo, a predeceased daughter of Meera and mother of the respondent was excluded from inheritance. The respondent then instituted a suit assailing the aforesaid mutation. The petitioners contested the suit and denied the relationship of the respondent with Meera. The plea of limitation was also raised and it was averred in the written statement that the petitioners had perfected their title by virtue of their possession over the suit land for more than 12 years. Number of issues were framed and during the trial issues with regard to the description of property, form of the suit and Issue No,4 relating to the adverse possession and Issue No,6 regarding the sect of Meera deceased were not presed. As far as the relationship was concerned, the trial Court came' to the conclusion that Mst. Saboo was the daughter of Meera and the respondent was her daughter. The issue of limitation was also decided against the petitioners. Consequently, on 1-12-1992 the suit was decreed and an appeal assailing the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide order dated 11-7-1994.
Revision petition was then instituted, which has been dismissed vide orders impugned.
3. In the High Court only Issues Nos.7 and 8 were pressed and it was contended that Nikahnama of Mst. Saboo and Nikahnama of the respondent had not been proved. In the High Court it was also argued that there was no cogent evidence of relationship of the respondent with Meera deceased.
On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it was strenuously argued in the High Court that the relationship had been clearly established and thus being a finding of fact having been concurrently arrived at by the learned Civil Judge as well as the Appellate Court was not liable to be interfered in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Documents with regard to the relationship were admitted in evidence without any objection taken by the petitioner and therefore the High Court rightly repelled the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners.
Documents Exh. P.4 and 5 established direct relationship and the same was further proved by the testimony of two witnesses, who were from the motherhood of Meera and had special means of knowledge to depose as to the relationship. On the other hand, the two witnesses produced by the petitioners were totally strangers to the family and, therefore, their evidence was rightly discarded by the Courts below.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Mumtaz Bibi and others vs Public At Large and others 2023 YLR 675