AMIR and others vs BASHIRAN BIBI and others
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners regarding the inheritance of land measuring 135 Kanals and 10 Marlas left by Mohabat, who died in 1954. The core legal question concerns the determination of the status of respondents as the widow and daughter of the deceased and whether their suit for declaration filed in 1989 was within limitation. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court and affirmed by the High Court regarding the status of the daughter and the inheritance rights do not suffer from any illegality, misreading, or non-reading of evidence. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on family lineage and inheritance, supported by record evidence, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court in an upward petition unless vitiated by serious legal flaws or misreading of evidence.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding inheritance status can be interfered with without proof of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Can a co-sharer maintain a suit for declaration of inheritance shares beyond the standard limitation period when joint possession is established?
- Whether the testimony and documentary evidence such as an FIR can be used to establish marital status and lineage in inheritance matters?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--This petition is directed against the judgment dated 30-1-2003 of the Lahore High Court, through which revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. The dispute relates to inheritance of Mohabat who died in 1954, who was owner of land measuring 135 Kanals, 10 Marlas in dispute. On 11-8-1955, a mutation was sanctioned of his inheritance in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners as collateral. In 1957 an appeal was filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the Collector against the said mutation who claimed that they were daughter and widow, respectively of Mohabat deceased but were let out from inheritance illegally. This appeal was accepted and the case was remanded to the Revenue Officer for fresh decision of the said mutation who after remand confirmed the previous mutation through order dated 19-8-1957.
3. The respondents on 4-10-1989 filed suit for declaration that they were also owners of the land jointly with the petitioners to the extent of 5/8 share. It was contested on the ground of limitation and merits also. The case of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was that they were daughter and widow respectively of Mohabat deceased as such were entitled to inherit his property whereas plea of the petitioners was that Chiragh Bibi was never married to Mohabat, therefore, she was not his widow and he had no daughter.
4. The trial Court dismissed the suit of respondents through judgment dated 31-7-1993 against which appeal filed by them was accepted through judgment dated 24-4-1994 by holding that Mst.
Bashiran Bibi was the daughter of Mohabat, therefore, was entitled to inherit the land in dispute to the extent of 1/2 share whereas Mst. Chiragh Bibi had been divorced before his death therefore, she was not entitled to inherit his property. The suit was held to be within limitation as per findings that Mst. Bashiran Bibi was a daughter of Mohabat therefore, she became joint owner in the land as such could maintain the suit for declaration of her share. The revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 30-1-2003 by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, against which leave is sought.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was noevidence on the record that Mst.
Chiragh Bibi was married to Mohabat. He admitted when questioned that copy of F.I.R. Which was lodged on 9-11-1938 by Noor Muhammad, a cousin of Chiragh, deceased in which he alleged that Mst. Chiragh Bibi was wife of Mohabat who was beaten by the latter who turned her out from his house. He went on saying that she came to his house in these circumstances alongwith one daughter from Mohabat. According to the petitioners, respondent No,1 was daughter of Muhammad Ramzan to whom Mst. Chiragh Bibi was married. Brother of Muhammad Ramzan appeared before Revenue Officer and stated that Muhammad Ramzan had only one daughter namely Naziran Bibi and not two daughters.
6. The findings of facts recorded by the First Appellate. Court that Mst. Bashiran Bibi was the daughter of Mohabat and affirmed by the High Court do not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence. The plea of denial of status of Mst.
Bashiran Bibi as daughter of Mohabat of the petitioners was based on denial of her Nikah with Mohabat but all the Courts have held that she was divorced by Mohabat.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and .