1986 PLP 1361 (SCMR)
SHAHADAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus Rai ABU SALEH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1361 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHADAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus Rai ABU SALEH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1361 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1361 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1361 (SCMR) (SHAHADAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus Rai ABU SALEH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Salim Ahmad Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1986.
- S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Salim Ahmad Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10-1-1978 in Regular Second Appeal No. 7 of 1978).
Art. 185(3)--Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 3, 50 & 165--Inheritance- Question of law--Whether evidence of witnesses to prove relationship of widow with last male owner admissible under S. 50, Evidence Act, or under any provision of law and whether fact relating to relationship could be said to have been proved according to definition of word "proved" in S. 3 of Evidence Act or S. 165 thereof, requiring consideration--Leave to appeal granted.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 10‑1‑1978 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Regular Second Appeal arising out of an inheritance case filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.
2. The question involved in the case is one of fact as to whether Mat. Sahibzadi was the widow of Amir Ali, the alleged last male holder. The respondents (plaintiffs) produced two witnesses to prove that she was the widow. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but, in appeal, it was decreed and the Regular Second Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed, therefore, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The question raised by the learned counsel is that the only evidence produced for establishing the relationship of Sahibzadi With Amir Ali were P. Ws. one and two. Their testimony as to the said relationship was as argued neither admissible under section 50 of the Evidence Act nor under any other provision of law. Therefore, the ‑fact relating to relationship cannot be said to have been proved according to the definition of the word "proved" in section 3 of the Evidence Act or under section 165 thereof.
4. Question of law raised needs consideration. This petition accordingly is allowed and leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs.2,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the same record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary. Status quo as to possession shall continue during the pendency of the appeal. M. Y. H Leave granted.