AYESHA BIBI and others vs ILAM DIN and others
This matter arises from a civil suit instituted by the respondents, claiming to be the son and widow of the deceased Abdullah, seeking a declaration against a mutation of inheritance in favor of the petitioners. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, which was subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court in civil revision. The core legal question concerned the proof of relationship and inheritance rights, specifically regarding the evaluation of oral and documentary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate and revisional courts regarding the establishment of the relationship through competent witness testimony satisfying Article 50 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 were unexceptionable, as no perversity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence was shown. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence regarding family lineage and relationship will not be interfered with in revisional or apex court jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding family relationship can be interfered with when based on proper appraisal of evidence?
- Does the testimony of a real brother satisfy the requirements of proof of relationship under Article 50 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Can a civil revision petition be maintained against the judgment of an appellate court when findings are not perverse?
- Article 50, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---One Abdullah alias Daulia died in the year 1955 and a Mutation bearing No,407 was attested with respect to his inheritance. According to this mutation the entire estate of Abdullah devolved on Mst. Ayesha Bibi as his widow and Khadim Hussain as his son.
Claiming also to be a son and a widow respectively of the said Abdullah, Ilam Din and Mst. Fatima filed a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Wazirabad praying for a declaration that they were also entitled to inherit the property left behind by the above mentioned Abdullah and that the above-noticed Mutation No,407 was illegal and was ineffective as against them and their rights.
Through a judgment dated 11-5-1998, the learned trial Judge at Wazirabad dismissed the said suit.
On an appeal filed by the said plaintiffs, a learned Additional District Judge at Wazirabad, through his judgment dated 21-5-1999, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed.
2. Mst. Ayesha Bibi and Khadim Hussain above mentioned approached the Honourable Lahore High Court with. Civil Revision No,747 of 1999 impugning the above mentioned appellate judgment and decree passed against them. This revision petition was dismissed by the learned High Court through a judgment dated 28-5-1999.
3. Hence this petition.
4. The learned Revisional Court concurred with the findings of the Appellate Court by holding that the plaintiffs had successfully proved their relationship with Abdullah through their own statements and through their evidence offered by Ghulam Rasool P. V.1, Ali Bahadar P.W.2 and Khan.
Muhammad P.W.3. It was "further found that Ghulam Rasool P.W.1 being a real brother of Mst.
Fatima was a witness who had special knowledge of the relationship in question and he had fully satisfied the requirements of Article 50 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. It was further found by the High Court that the witnesses produced by the defendants were not related to the parties and thus did not have any special knowledge about the relationship in question. The concurrent A findings of the learned appellate and the Honourable Revisional Court could not be shown to be perverse or to be the result of any misreading or non-reading of evidence available on the record.
The said findings are therefore, unexceptionable.
5. This petition is therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.