2024 MLD 534
Mst. BADAMI vs Mst. BUDHEE
Ss. 8 & 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.89 (5) & 129(g)---Suit for declaration and possession of immoveable property---Inheritance, right of---Pedigreetable not proved---Appellants filed suit for declaration and possession alleging that they being collateral of the issueless deceased/original owner of the suit property were entitled to get his bequest but his widow got the suit property transferred in her favour---Respondent contested the suit on the ground that she being widow of the deceased was the only legal heir and as such was entitled to the entire estate, however she denied that appellants were collateral of the deceased---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal was also dismissed---Validity---Record showed that at trial stage and before the appellate Court appellants could not substantiate their stance by leading cogent and confidence inspiring evidence because the pedigree table produced by them did not establish their relationship to the propositus making them residuary---Pedigree table was produced later---Evidently, the pedigree tables were issued from the concerned authorities in India in the year 1985 and the same was in Indian language, so it was translated by Mr. "A"; meaning thereby that the said person was an important witness so as to substantiate the stance of the appellants but he was not produced in the witness box, for reasons best known to them, so adverse presumption arose against the appellants in view of Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that had he appeared in the witness box, he would not have supported the stance of the appellants---Even, the appellant did not produce the passport or any other documentary evidence of said Mr. "A" to show and prove that he travelled from Pakistan to Indian from such and such date in the year 1985 despite the fact that allegedly he travelled twice to India; firstly for obtaining pedigree tables and secondly for getting the same translated---Furthermore, the pedigree tables produced by the appellants were different from one another, because pedigree table in plaint showed deceased owner as single son of Mr. "D"; the pedigree table attached with the suit disclosed Mr. "J" as brother of deceased owner besides widow and the pedigree table allegedly obtained from India showed four sons of Mr. "D" thus, the same could not be relied upon, because it casted aspersions about their authenticity---In the present case, the pedigree tables were not part of judicial record and even the same did not bear any certificate as required under Art. 89 (5) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---In that view of the matter, the documents brought on record could not be said to have been duly obtained in accordance with law and could not be relied upon for decision of a matter with regard to inheritance---Appellants had failed to establish their relationship with deceased, thus, they had no locus standi
0 Comments