1998 PLP 386 (SCMR)
AHMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DIWAYA and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 386 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Nasir Aslam Zahid, JJ |
| Parties | AHMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DIWAYA and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 386 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 386 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Nasir Aslam Zahid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 386 (SCMR) (AHMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DIWAYA and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaitkat Ali Mehr, Adv6cate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th November, 1997.
- Shaitkat Ali Mehr, Adv6cate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- 2. In support of the above petition Mr. Shaukat Ali Mehr, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, has contended that the Court below have relied upon pedigree-table, Exh.P.10 and Exh.D.4, without examining any witness in support thereof to explain the same. To reinforce the above submission he has relied upon the case of Muhammad Hussain and others v. Muhammad Khan (1989 SCMR 1026) and the case of Muhammad Naeem and others v. Glulam Muhammad and others (1994 SCMR 559), in which been held that the contents of a pedigree-table are to be proved and mere exhibition of the same as a document is not sufficient.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 23‑4‑1996 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, passed in Civil Revision No.201‑D of 1996). ‑‑‑‑Art. 72‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Pedigree‑tables‑‑ Reliance on‑‑‑Proof‑‑‑Requirement‑‑‑Mere exhibition of pedigree‑table not sufficient‑‑‑Claim of rival claimants as legal heirs of deceased landowner‑‑ Courts below including High Court had relied upon pedigree‑table without examining any witness in support thereof, to explain the same‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted on basis of Supreme Court's earlier judgments reported as 1989 SCMR 1026 and 1994 SCMR 559 wherein, rule laid down was that contents of pedigree‑table were to be proved arid mere exhibition of same as document was not sufficient‑‑‑Prima facie, such reports supported case of petitioners‑‑‑Leave to appeal was, thus, granted to consider, as to whether Courts below had rightly relied upon pedigree‑table without proof of its contents. Muhammad Hussain and others v. Muhammad Khan 1989 SCMR 1026 and Muhammad Naeem and others v. Ghulam Muhammad and others 1994 SCMR 559 rel.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 23-4-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.201-D-96, filed by the petitioners against the concurrent judgments/decrees dated 23-1-1995 and 21-3-1996 of the learned Civil Judge, Liaquatpur, and of the learned Additional District Judge, Liaquatpur, in Civil Suit No. 181 of 1992 and in Civil Appeal No.55/19 of 1993, respectively, decreeing the respondents' suit to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit land as legal heirs of Mst. Bachi, dismissing the same by maintaining the above concurrent judgments /decrees. The petitioners, who claim also to be the legal heirs of Mst. Bachi to the exclusion of the respondents, hay-a filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition Mr. Shaukat Ali Mehr, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, has contended that the Court below have relied upon pedigree-table, Exh.P.10 and Exh.D.4, without examining any witness in support thereof to explain the same. To reinforce the above submission he has relied upon the case of Muhammad Hussain and others v. Muhammad Khan (1989 SCMR 1026) and the case of Muhammad Naeem and others v. Glulam Muhammad and others (1994 SCMR 559), in which been held that the contents of a pedigree-table are to be proved and mere exhibition of the same as a document is not sufficient.
3. Prima facie, the above reports support the case of the petitioners. We are inclined to grant leave to consider the question, as to whether the Courts below have rightly relied upon aforesaid Exh.P.10 and Exh.D.4 without the proof of their contents. Leave is, accordingly, granted. A.A./A-22/S Leave granted.