1968 SCMR 139 (PLP)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-- This is a petition for the review of an order of this Court passed on the llth of October 1967, in Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 377 and 387 of 1967. The said two petitions were directed against the judgments of a Division Bench of the High Court of Nest Pakistan in two second appeals, which arose out of two suits filed by the respon dent herein. One of these was to have certain gifts made by the petitioner Murid Hussain Shah in favour of three of his sons and a daughter declared void in so far the reversionary rights of the said respondent were concerned, and another for a declaration that the respondent was also a legitimate son of the petitioner. Both the suits were decreed in favour of the respondent and these decrees were upheld in appeal right up to the High Court. The petitioners came up for special leave to appeal from the judgments and decrees of the High Court but this Court refused leave, for, it was found that the Courts below had concurrently found that the respondent was born during lawful wedlock upon the basis of direct evidence relating to the marriage of the respondent's mother with the petitioner after she had obtained a valid divorce from her previous husband. As these were all questions of fact, which were concluded by concurrent findings of the Court below, this Court found no ground for the grant of special leave, particularly, since these findings appeared to be supported also on certain acknowledgements made by the petitioner in a will executed by him and in several letters written by him to the respondent's mother Mst. Murid Fatima. Learned counsel, appearing in support of the review petition has, however, sought to contend that since the concept of acknowledgement of paternity is a special legal concept of Muhammadan Law the findings divorced from those principles can have no legal basis. According to him, the question of acknowledgement is not a pure questhm of fact and, as such, since neither the High Court nor this Court had in its previous order considered this question upon the juristic plane, there was a valid ground for review. We, how ever, see no force in this contention, for, the finding of the High Court that Mst. Murid Fatima was properly divorced and her subsequent Nikah with the petitioner had been amply proved by the evidence of the persons who performed the Nikah, shows that the Courts below were fully conscious that to constitute a valid acknowledgement of legitimacy under Muhammadan Law the rerson must not be the offspring of Zino. The other conditions of a valid acknowledgement under Muhammadan Law were also fully satisfied. It was believed by all the Courts below that the petitioner was the father of the respondent, the ages of the respondent and the petitioner were clearly such as to admit of the acknowledger being the father, the acknowledgement was not merely an acknowledgement of sonship but was clearly made to evidence that the petitioner accepted the respondent as his legitimate son. It cannot, therefore, be said that the mere fact that express reference has not been made in the judgment of the High Court to Muhammadan Law meant that the Courts below when dealing with this matter had not kept those principles in view. The findings recorded clearly show that those principles' were duly kept in mind. Learned counsel then sought to argue that those findings were ba ed on inadmissible evidence, but since this objection as to the inadmissibility of the evidence was not taken at the earliest stage the question cannot be raised now. None of the above points are, in any event, points which can legitimately furnish a ground foe review. They were points, which could have been raised at the previous hearing of the matter, but since this was not done they cannot be re-agitated by way of a review. This petition is clearly without substance and is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.