Source: http://www.internationalattorney.info/2014/10/inheritance-is-distributed-according-to_21.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:02:31+00:00

Document:
. establish opposite especially when witness so stating was to lose his entitlement to inheritance-Evidence on record was sufficient to establish that deceased professedshia faith—Judgment and decree of Appellate Court to effect that deceased was sunni by faith were set aside while that of Trial Court to effect that deceased professed shia faith was restored.
SC 267; 1997 SCMR 1139 and 1989 MLD 1013 ref.
Ch, Khurshid Ahmed, Advocate for Appellants.
Mian Farzand Alt, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 4, 6 to 7.
Mr. Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate for Remaining Respondents.
In this second appeal an order of the learned Add!. District Judge, Gujranwala dated 3,5.1979 is assailed. Through that order learned First Court of Appeal reversed the findings of the trial Court earlier recorded on 6.4.1975 while dismissing the suit filed by the present respondents Muhammad Malik etc.
rights. Also prayed for joint possession to the extent of 5/24 share in the suitland measuring 511 Kanals 12 Marias.
have died in the year, 1941. He was survived, by the defendants before theCivil Court namely Mst. Aisha Bibi, Mst. Sharifan Bibi, daughters and Mst.
Hayat Bibi, widow. At the time of death of Shukar the land left by him wasmutated in favour of his widow Mst. Hayat Bibi as life estate. However, inpursuance of West Pakistan Personal Law (Shariat Act) 1962 as amended inthe year, 1964 the life estate of Mst. Hayat Bibi came to an end and MutationNo, 770 dated 29.7.1965 was sanctioned by Assistant Collector-II,Gujranwala in favour of the two daughters and widow of the deceased afterholding him to be a Shia by faith. That mutation assigning 1/8 share to thewidow and. remaining 7/8 to the two daughters of the deceased wasunsuccessfully challenged before the Collector Gujranwala by the presentrespondents.
descendants of Buddha, great grand father of Shukar were entitled to inherit the land left by him to the extent of 5/24 share, Accordingly it was alleged that the revenue authorities wrongly attested the mutation in favour of Shukar as Shia because he was Sunni by faith and, therefore, the defendants could not be transferred whole of the estate left by him.
5. The defendants in their reply contested the suit and maintained that Shukar deceased. being Shia by faith the mutation was rightly sanctioned and that the appeal of the plaintiffs was correctly dismissed by the Collector. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed.
1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?OPD.
2. Whether the deceased Shukar Din was Shia and remained soup till his death? OPD.
3. Whether Mst Bhulan was sister of deceased Shukar Din andshe died after him? OPP.
4. Whether the plaint is incorrectly valued for the purposes ofCourt-Fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
decided Issue No. 1 against the defendants while Issue No. 3 was foundagainst the defendants holding that Mst. Bhulan sister of deceased Shukarhad died before him. The issue if the plaint was correctly valued for thepurposes of Court-Fee and jurisdiction was also decided in favour of theplaintiffs while Issue No. 5 was found against the plaintiffs in the light of thefindings recorded on Issue No. 2 as to the entitlement of the plaintiffs toshare the inheritance of Shukar deceased. Accordingly, in view of thefindings on Issues Nos. 2 and 5 the suit was dismissed.
table show that plaintiffs/appellants were descendants of Ghulam Muhammad and Shukar was descendant of Piran Ditta. Also that defendants/respondents in their written statement had admitted that Shukar deceased was son of Piran Ditta and that Piran Ditta was son of Gohar while Ex. P9, a copy of Jamabandishowed that Budha and Gohar were sons of Mohkam Din while Ex. P-ll proved the fact that Fazla, Allah Ditta, Ghulam Muhammad and Ali '.Muhammad were sons ofBudha. Therefore, in the view of the learned Court of first appeal from Ex. P9 and Ex. P-ll it stood proved that Ghulam Muhammad ancestor of plaintiffs and Piran Ditta, father of Shukar Din had a common ancestor by the name of Mohkam. Accordingly, finding the plaintiffs/appellants as collaterals of Shukar Din deceased held them to be entitled to inheritance of 5/24 share. Earlier the learned Court of first appeal while dealing with the cross-objections with regard to-the findings on issues 1 and 3 approved the findings recorded by the trial Court.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants states that neither of the two pedigree tables were properly proved inasmuch as none of the witnesses of the plaintiffs made even a reference to the same. Also that no evidence whatsoever including oral evidence was produced on record to prove that plaintiffs were collaterals of deceased Shukar Din. Also states that on Issue No. 3 the statements of PW-5 and 6 were not considered. Also that the contradiction in the statements of the PWs as noted by the learned trial Court were not considered by the learned first Court of appeal while reversing the findings en Issue No. 2.
9-. By relying upon the ratio settled in re. Bhojraj v. Sita Ram and others, (A.I.R. 1936 P.C. 60) learned counsel claims that the learned first Court of appeal ignored the basic principle that the real test for either accepting or rejecting an evidence was how consistent was it with the story, how it stood the test of cross-examination and how far it fit in with the rest of the evidence and the circumstances of the case. Also relies upon re. Malik Khan Muhammad v. Haji Sikandar Khan,(1989 CLC 2412) wherein the golden principle of law of evidence was reiterated that civil matters are decided on preponderance of evidence.
of the plaintiffs made in the plaint of their being collaterals of deceasedShukar. It is stated that the whole of the village in which deceased Shukarspent his life belonged to Sunm faith and, therefore a strong presumptionarose that he professed the same faith. That presumption, in their view, wasnot rebutted by the oral evidence of the defendants.
re. Allah Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Bhagan, (1994 CLC 1942), re. Muhammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Tahir, (1990 MLD 2399) and re. Zainul Hassan Mian and othersy. Mst. Khuwand Naka and others, (1989 MLD 1857). Also rely upon re. Haji Muhammad Din vs. Malik Muhammad Abdullah, (PLD 1994 S.C. 291), re. Muhammad Amir vs. Khan Bahadur and another, (PLD 1996 S.C. 267) and re. Abdul Hakeem v. Habib Ullah, (1997 SCMR 1139) to contend that concurrent findings of the Courts below on Issues Nos. 1 and 3 cannot be interfered with in second appeal.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that the learned trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence on record. On the other hand learned Add! District Judge was not right in demanding documentary evidence to support the faith of the deceased. In re. Mst. Sattan and others v. Mst. Sahiban (1989 MLD 1013), a case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it was found that faith of a person at the time of his death was determinative of mode of inheritance to his estate.
13 In the first place there was ample oral evidence that daceased Shukar professed Shia faitli at ins time of Ms death and, therefore, mere fact that majority living in the village belonged to Sunni sect was not of much relevance. It hardly needs emphasis that a person can very well change his sect during his life time and the said change always does not need support from documentary evidence.
to the body of late Shukar Din was-given by Zahoor Ahmad. He stated thatboth Muhammad Hussain and Zahoor Ahmad were Shia and that hehimself was Shia and had offered funeral prayer of Shukar deceased. In hiscross-examination he claimed that there were 4/5 Shia families in thevillage.
plaintiffs namely Faqir Muhammad, Umar Din, Muhammad Khan and Sana Ullah alongwith Muhammad Malik, Plaintiff No. 1 simply affirmed that late Shukar Din was a Sunni by faith.
that at the relevant time Muhammad Sharif was himself claiming a share inthe estate of the deceased oh account of being the son of the real sister of thedeceased. During these proceedings he deposed against his interest by sayingthat the deceased was a Shia by faith. Therefore, the revenue authoritiesrightly gave due weight to his statement and accordingly not only sanctionedthe impugned mutation but also rejected the appeal filed by the plaintiffs(now respondents) before the Civil Court.
17. It is also my considered view that the learned trial Court did notmisread and evidence. The appellate Court rejected the claim of ZahoorAhmad DW-3 of his having given funeral bath to the deceased merely for thereason that he belonged to another village. His opinion that DW-3 and 4could not be interested in the burial of Shukar Din, in absence of anysuggestion in the cross-examination to these witnesses, is also not wellbased. Also the learned Addl. District Judge was not correct in suggestingthat the trial Court ought to have ignored the proceedings before therevenue authorities. It will be seen that the centre of controversy wasMutation No. 770 dated 29.7.1965 and the plaintiffs had sought itscancellation. Therefore, to suggest that these proceedings could not be takeninto consideration at all by the learned, trial Court appears unjustified,particularly in view of the fact when the presence and participation ofMuhammad Sharif son of Bhulan and his statement that his deceased unclebelonged to Shia faith was not disputed by the plaintiffs (now respondents).
may gain some financial benefit is offset by the strong feelings which peoplegenerally have for their faith in our society.
Issue No. 2 are, therefore, set aside. Issue No. 2 being the core issue rest ofthe issues need not be discussed to accept this appeal.
Disclaimner : We are not responsible for any consequences from information taken from this website.. Simple theme. Theme images by centauria. Powered by Blogger.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.