1988 PLP 837 (MLD)
Mst. ZAINUB BIBI-Appellant Versus Mst. MAJIDAN BIBI-Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 837 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hassan, J |
| Parties | Mst. ZAINUB BIBI-Appellant Versus Mst. MAJIDAN BIBI-Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872), (a) Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 837 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872), (a) Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 837 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Akhtar Hassan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 837 (MLD) (Mst. ZAINUB BIBI-Appellant Versus Mst. MAJIDAN BIBI-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Allah Wasaya Malik for Appellant.
- Afzal Ahmad Qureshi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th March, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 100--Second appeal--Appraisal of evidence--Courts below having chosen to accept the version of plaintiff's witnesses, it could not be asserted that they must in all events prefer that of defendant's witnesses--Merely because lower Courts could choose the opposite view, held, would interference in second appeal. 1986 S C M R 1814 ref.
S.50--Opinion on relationship--Crucial question before Courts below was as to plaintiff s parentage and both Courts concurrently upholding her claim of being daughter of the propositus--Deceased's real brother and sister having special means by virtue of their close relationship with him to know as to whether or not the plaintiff was his daughter, deposing that the defendant was his only wife and that the plaintiff was his daughter from her womb--Testimony of such witnesses sufficiently evidencing the "conduct" on part of the deceased in terms of S. 50 of the Evidence Act to prove parentage of plaintiff and such version finding corroboration from a contradiction of the defendant's own witnesses whereby they tried' to prove that the deceased had married not one but three ladies including the appellant--Fact that relationship of plaintiffs witnesses with deceased had not been questioned, held, would- make them trustworthy especially about paternity of the plaintiff--Second appal being without any substance dismissed--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100.
Judgment & Decree
This R.S.A. is against the judgment and decree dated 17-1-1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura whereby he affirmed that of the trial Court holding that the respondent/plaintiff Mst. Majidan Bibi was a real daughter of Barkat Ali deceased and as such entitled to inherit him alongwith others.
2. The crucial question before the Courts below was as to her parentage and both the Courts below concurrently upheld her claim of being a daughter of the propositus.
3. It was contended. that the evidence on the point had, in fact, been misread, emphasising in particular that there was no earthly reason to ignore the testimony of the mother D.W.3 and the brother Majeed D.W.4 who consistently deposed that the respondent was not a daughter of Barkat Ali. Apparently objection seems to be well placed but on- the other hand the statements of a real brother and a sister of the deceased namely P.Ws.5 and 9 could equally be not brushed aside as they too had special means to state that the respondent was a daughter of the deceased from his sole wife namely Mst. Zainab D.W.3.
4. I do not think that there was any question of law involved to support the R.S.A. It was all appraisal of evidence and if the Courts below chose to accept the version of P.Ws., it cannot be asserted that they must in all events prefer that o the D.Ws. especially the deceased's widow and children. The contention that the real mother could not ordinarily disclaim a true daughter may be somewhat persuading but the fact that the entire land left by the deceased had already been arrogated by the appellant Majeed may be the reason on her part to feel annoyed of the respondent who did not agree to part with her share. This reason looks to have been in the back of the mind of the learned Additional District Judge, although he did not express in so many words in the judgment. He skipped over the appellants' own statements as they were parties, suggesting that that without corroboration their own version was not inspiring. He discussed other evidence examined by them and gave reasons for believing that the appellant Majeed was not honest in denying parentage of the lady. Mr. M.M.Saeed Baig, Advocate for the respondent maintained that mereb because the lower Court could choose the opposite view would not justify interference in the Second Appeal, and relied upon Fazal Rehman v. Amir Harder and another (1986 S C M R 1814).
5. Learned counsel for the appellant cited Shah Nawaz and another v. Nawab Khan (PLD 1976 S C 767) in support of the argument that there was no evidence of showing how the deceased Barkat Ali treated the respondent Mst. Majidan and that mere testimony on the part of D.Ws. as his close relations did, not satisfy the dictates of section 50 of the Evidence Act. The fact remains that P.Ws. particularly the deceased's real brother and sister had special means by virtue of their close relationship with him to know as to whether or not the respondent was his daughter. They deposed that the appellant Zainab is, only wife and that the respondent was his daughter from her womb. Their; testimony sufficiently evidenced the "conduct on the part of the deceased in terms] of Section 50 ibid to prove her parentage. This version found corroboration from a contradiction of the appellants own evidence whereby they tried to prove that, the deceased had married not one but three ladies including the appellant Mst. Zainab. The other two, according to them, were Mst. Taleh Bibi and Rashida Bibi. It happened to come forth from the mouth of D.W.1 Muhammad Ali who; happened. to be his relation. No such plea was taken up in the written statement and was; introduced in evidence in a haphazard manner, It was argued that the P. CVs were inimical towards the appellant. Nonetheless their relationship with, the deceased having not at all been questioned would make them trustworthy especially about paternity of the respondent.
6. As a result there is no substance in the R.SA. and same is dismissed with costs throughout. S.Q/Z-52/L Appeal dismissed.