Pedigree table

2022 CLC 616 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 62 & 63Relationship, proof ofInquiryPedigree table

Petitioner's suit for declaration and permanent injunction against orders of Revenue Authorities was decreed by the Trial Court

Appeal of respondents was allowed

Petitioner contended that evidence on record proved that petitioner was a legal heir of deceased (being consanguine brother of deceased father of respondents/daughters); that appeals filed by respondents were time barred; that Foti Khata had been recorded in favour of petitioner after thorough inquiry including Jalsa-e-Aam; that the said inquiry was not challenged; that mere non-disclosure of pedigree table in suit by itself was not fatal for suit; that it was never established that respondents belonged to Shia sect

Validity

After death of the deceased, on application of petitioner concerned Assistant Mukhtiarkar had declared the petitioner to be the legal heir of deceased along with respondents/daughters of deceased

Respondents filed suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioner which was unconditionally withdrawn

Respondents filed appeal before District Officer Revenue which was allowed vide order against which petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by E.D.O. Revenue

Pedigree table by itself was not a proof of relationship which had to be proved independently by affirmative evidence regarding claim of relationship

On spot enquiry made by Mukhtiarkar revealed that petitioner was legal heir of the deceased and that deceased was a follower of Sunni sect and an order for mutation was made and implemented accordingly

Deputy District Officer conducted inquiry on order of District Officer and vide his inquiry report informed him that petitioner was legal heir of deceased

On spot inquiry was made through 3 persons (Nek-Mard) whereas the entire pedigree of the deceased was revealed that petitioner's claim was correct

District Officer Revenue could not disagree with the same inquiry report without any further inquiry and deliberations, but he passed an order contrary to the facts on record in slipshod manner without any reason/rhyme

E.D.O. Revenue failed to dilate upon the issue and had not given his own finding and his order was non-speaking order and without any reasoning

Orders of both officers i.e. D.O. Revenue and E.D.O. Revenue were not proper, against law, and had been passed in cursory manner

Respondents had approached the Revenue Authorities after aborting their civil remedy, hence, burden upon them was on higher pedestal as compared to the one on the petitioner who came to assert some right or breach of his right

Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

2017 PLD 88 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 64 & 129(g)ParentageProofPedigree-tableNon-appearance in witness box in support of claimed relationshipEffect

Parentage cannot be proved by mere production of pedigree-table, without appearing in witness box to depose in support of claimed relationship

Non-appearance leads to an adverse inference to be taken by Trial Court under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

2017 YLRN 148 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 12(2)Fraud and misrepresenta-tionDecree, setting aside ofInheritancePedigree tableScope

Contention of applicant was that impugned decree was obtained by the respondent by representing as sole legal heir of the deceased

Validity

Respondent could not manage to support the pedigree table mentioned in their replication

No revenue record was got exhibited with regard to correctness of pedigree table produced by the respondent

Applicant was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be unearthed during the same

Impugned judgment and decree was set aside

Applicant for his redressal could take the recourse to the court of competent jurisdiction.

2016 YLRN 77 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 52Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 8Suit for possession of immovable propertyLimitationLong standing entries in the record of rightsScopePedigree tableContention of plaintiffs was that they had purchased suit landSuit was decreed concurrentlyValidityDefendants were in possession of suit property and their names were incorporated in the settlement recordEntries made in record of rights prepared under any settlement had overriding effects

Pedigree table had the status of record of rights and same would carry presumption of truth under S.52 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967

Name of predecessor of defendants appeared in the pedigree table for year 1895-96 which had been further supported by revenue and settlement record

Long standing entries in the record of rights having presumption of correctness had supported the contentions of defendants

Such entries had not been rebutted by the plaintiffs through documentary or oral evidence as evasive assertion was not sufficient

Plaintiffs had never challenged such entries and they remained silent for more than a century despite the fact that possession of defendants was in their knowledge

Defendants were receiving their share right from the settlement who were owners of suit property

No suit for possession would lie against the owners of suit land

Both the courts below had failed to examine revenue record available on file properly

Claim of defendants was based on entries made in revenue and settlement record

Strong evidence was required to rebut the authenticity of the same

Genuineness and correctness of revenue record and pedigree table were not liable to be disturbed at such a belated stage

Record of rights which remained in existence and un-rebutted for more than a century could not be altered without lawful justification which was lacking in the present case

Illegality had been committed by both the courts below

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside and suit was dismissed

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

2016 CLCN 40 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

InheritancePedigree tableReturn (Radd), principle ofApplicabilityDevolving of whole property of deceased upon uterine sistersScope

Contention of plaintiffs was that they being uterine sisters were entitled to inherit whole property left by the deceased

Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but same was dismissed by the Appellate Court

Validity

Rapt was got recorded by the defendant and pedigree table was prepared on his statement

Inheritance mutation was got entered on the statement of defendant

Revenue officer attested the said mutation in accordance with law

Facts which were not cross-examined on material points would be presumed to have been accepted by the other party

Plaintiffs being uterine sisters of deceased were sharers and defendant was distant kindred

Plaintiffs were entitled to inherit the deceased as sharers and nothing would be left for distant kindred

Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were in ignorance of material evidence which were not sustainable

Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and those of Trial Court were restored.

2015 YLR 2199 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 42West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) S. 52Suit for declarationPedigree tablePresumptionApplicabilityDelay in filing suitPossession of suit propertyEffect

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that they were widow and daughter of deceased and were entitled to legacy as per sharia law and pedigree table in revenue record had been wrongly prepared and was ineffective upon their rights

Defendants contested the suit on the ground that suit property had been righty devolved upon defendant

Plaintiffs examined Halqa Patwari and their attorney as their witnesses

Halqa Patwari produced revenue record along with pedigree table wherein plaintiffs were not shown

Attorney of plaintiffs also produced a pedigree table that was contested as fake and fictitious

Suit was decreed but appeal against was allowed

Validity

Pedigree table produced by plaintiffs was not supported by any evidence of persons from the locality

No evidence had been produced by plaintiffs that pedigree table in revenue record was wrongly prepared

Suit had been filed after gap of forty years and no explanation to that effect had been given by plaintiffs

Plaintiffs had failed to prove their entitlement to their respective shares through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence

Admittedly, defendants were in possession of suit property, since long

Presumption of truth was attached to entries of first ever settlement record of revenue estate and it could not be discredited by oral evidence of attorney of plaintiffs after a gap of forty years

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 CLC 108 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 42Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.64Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11Suit for declarationLimitationInheritancePedigree tableConstructive res judicata, principle ofApplicability

Contention of plaintiffs was that they were minors and when they attained the age of majority, they challenged the matter

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Claim of plaintiffs was based on pedigree table which connected them with their predecessor

No evidence was available on record in support of their claim

Pedigree table by itself was not a proof of relationship unless same was proved by some reliable and independent evidence

Such table not corroborated by convincing and independent evidence did not have much evidentiary value

Relationship on which the right of inheritance of the plaintiffs was based had failed for lack of independent evidence

Predecessor of plaintiffs brought suit claiming inheritance with regard to property in question and all the rights and obligations stood adjudicated which was never challenged

Present suit was hit by principle of constructive res judicata

Plaintiffs were bound to file suit within 3 years after attaining majority

Suit filed by the plaintiff was time-barred

Father of plaintiffs died 35 years back who did not challenge the inheritance of his mother during his life time

Plaintiffs had no locus standi to question the same

Both the courts below had recorded concurrent findings which were not open to exception

No illegality or irregularity was shown to have been committed by the courts below

No misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.