Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AYESHA BIBI VS Respondent: ILAM DINHonorable Justice KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAYAli Ahmad Awan,Rana Maqbool Ahmed Khan
2003 S C M R 1843
2003 S C M R 1843
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ
AYESHA BIBI and others---Petitioners
Versus
ILAM DIN and others---Respondents
Civil Petition No. 1185-L of 1999, decided on 19th July, 2002.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28-5-1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No.747 of 1999).
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art.46(5)---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.45-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Existence of marriage-- Proof---Mutation of inheritance---Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below---Plaintiffs assailed mutation of inheritance on the ground that they were also widow and son of the deceased owner of the suit land-- Trial Court dismissed the suit but Appellate Court allowed the appeal and the suit was decreed---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction upheld the judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court-- Validity ---Revisional Court concurred with the findings of Appellate Court by holding that the plaintiffs had successfully proved their relationship with the deceased owner of the suit-land through their own statements and through their evidence offered by the witnesses---One of the witnesses was real brother of plaintiff widow having special knowledge of the relationship in question and he had fully satisfied the requirements of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---High Court had rightly found 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---Concurrent findings of the Appellate Court and the Revisional Court could not be shown to be perverse or to be the result of any misreading or non-reading of evidence available on record, thus such findings were unexceptionable---Leave to appeal was refused.
Ali Ahmad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Rana Maqbool Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th July, 2002.
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.W.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 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.
M.H./A-321/S Petition dismissed.