MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others vs Mian ABDUR RAHMAN
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal arising from a dispute concerning the relationship of a plaintiff to a vendor, which is central to the claim. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the mere tendering of a pedigree-table into evidence, without further corroborative proof or cross-examination regarding the claimed relationship, is sufficient to establish the relationship between the plaintiff and the vendor. The Court observed that both parties gave conflicting testimony regarding the plaintiff's status as 'Taya Zad' (cousin) of the vendor, yet neither party was cross-examined on this specific point, and the plaintiff failed to reference the pedigree-table (Exh.P.1) during his testimony. Finding that this issue requires authoritative determination, the Court granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the mere production of a document, such as a pedigree-table, does not automatically constitute proof of the facts contained therein, particularly the relationship between parties, without independent evidence or verification to substantiate the document's contents.
- Can a pedigree-table be accepted as proof of relationship without further evidence?
- Does the mere tender of a document into evidence satisfy the burden of proof regarding the facts contained within it?
ORDER
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to decide C.P.L.A. Nos.3113=3114-L of 2001 as a question of law and facts are identical in both of them.
2. The petitioner when appeared as D. W.8 specifically stated that the respondent-plaintiff was not TAYA ZAD of the vendor but he was not cross-examined on this point, on the other hand when the respondent-plaintiff appeared as his own witness as P.W.2 at the stage of rebuttal stated that he was Taya Zad of the vendor but he also was not cross-examined on that point. The respondent- plaintiff in his statement did not even refer to pedigree-table which he had already tendered in evidence as Exh.P.1. Leave has already been granted in the case of Mehr Hussain v. Bahadar Ali in C.P. No,1256 of 2001 to consider whether mere tender of pedigree-table without further proof of the relationship of the 'plaintiff with the vendor could be read as evidence of proof of relationship.
Leave is granted in this case also on the said point. Till the disposal of this appeal execution proceedings shall remain stayed.