1975 PLP 471 (SCMR)
KHAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND Another — Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 471 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND Another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 471 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 471 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 471 (SCMR) (KHAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND Another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 1st April 1975.
- Ch. Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 19-12-1974 in Civil Revision No. 982 of 1974).
S. 115-Revision-Concurrent finding of two Courts below on a pure question of fact-Involves no question of jurisdiction so as to attract operation of S. 115-Dismissal of revision on such ground, held, not faulty. -- S. 112-Petitioner admitting respondent's mother to have been legally married to him-Respondents born to petitioner's wife during lawful wedlock, held, legitimate sons.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 112‑Petitioner admitting respondent's mother to have been legally married to him‑Respondents born to petitioner's wife during lawful wedlock, held, legitimate sons. Ch. Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 1st April 1975. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑
The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing his Revision Petition in limine. It appears that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that the two respondents were not his sons, and that they were the illegitimate children begotten from Karamat. Admittedly the petitioner had been married to Mst. Kalsum, and the two respondents were born to Mst. Kalsum during the subsistence of the marriage. The petitioner, however, claimed that he was a minor when he was married to Mst. Kalsum, and that he had no access whatsoever to her. The trial Court found that the petitioner had failed to prove his case, and it accordingly rejected his claim and dismissed the suit. On appeal by the petitioner, the learned District Judge held that the respondents were the legitimate sons of the petitioner. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in revision refused to interfere with the concurrent finding of the two Courts below on the ground that the point of dispute between the parties was a pure question of fact, and that there was no question of jurisdiction involved in the case so as to attract the operation of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We are unable to find any fault with this view of the High Court. Section 112 of the Evidence Act which is applicable to the facts of the case provides :‑-- "The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten." It may be added that the petitioner in his plaint admitted that Mst. Kalsum was his real cousin and was married to him as prescribed by Shariat. There is no question of law far less of any public importance involved in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.