Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 164‑R of 1975, decided on 27th November 1975.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 28th of September 1975, in Civil Revision No. 912 of 1975).
‑‑‑ Ss. 102 & 103‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). S. 96‑Burden of proof‑Appeal‑ Findings of fact interference with‑Petitioners resisting plaintiffs claim to property of her husband on ground ref her having been divorced‑Marriage of plaintiff'' with propositus having been admitted onus to prose factum of divorce held, lay on Petitioners ‑‑ Trial Court having wrongly pled onus upon plaintiff, approach to case vitiated and affected appraisement of evidence Sufficient balance of improbability also exercising to displace trial Court's finding as to truth of oral evidence accepted by it Dictum that where direct conflict of oral evidence of parties exists and no documentary evidence clearly affirms one View or contradicts other acid sufficient balance of improbability does not exist to displace trial Judge's finding as to truth of oral evidence, appellate Court should not interfere with finding of fact of trial Court, held determined by the first appellate Court Circumstances and question of onus being correctly evidence by lust appellate Court not difficult to accept plaintiff's evidence in reference to defendant's.‑,Burden of proof Appeal.
W. C. Macdonald v. Fred Latimer A I R 1929 P C 15 held or applicable.
Gul Muhammad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 27th November 1975.
This petition arises out of a suit by respondent Mst. Gohar Bano against the petitioners for possession of I/16th share of the property left by Nawab Khan, claimed to be the plaintiff's husband. The petitioners are the widow and children of the propositus, and they resisted the claim of the plaintiff on tile ground that she had been divorced by Nawab. The trial Court wrongly put the onus upon the plaintiff to prove that she was a widow of Nawab Khan, and ultimately dismissed the suit,
The plaintiff ‑respondent appealed and the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and reversed the finding of the trial Court. It was held that the marriage of the plaintiff with the said Nawab Khan having been admitted it was for the defendants who set up the plea of divorce to prove it. There was no document in support of the alleged divorce. The learned District Judge upon a scrutiny of the evidence preferred to accept the evidence of the plaintiff. He was perfectly entitled to do so.
The petitioners' revision before the High Court was dismissed.
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that this was a case of oral evidence versus oral evidence and, therefore the learned District Judge should not have interfered with the appraisement of evidence made by the trial Court. In support of this contention the case of W. C. Macdonald v. Fred Latimer (AIR1929PC15) has been cited.
Furthermore that the reasons given by the learned District Judge for preferring the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff are not good.
There is no substance in either contention.
As regards the first contention it was fully within the jurisdiction of the final Court of facts to make its own appraisement of the evidence. The case cited in support off the contention has no application to the fact: of the present case for the trial Court having wrongly placed the onus upon the plaintiff, its approach to the case became vitiated, and this affected his appraisement of the evidence. Besides there did exist sufficient balance of improbability to displace the trial Court's finding as to the truth of the oral evidence accepted by it. In the case under report it has been held that where there is a direct conflict of oral evidence of the parties, and there is no documentary evidence that clearly affirms one view or contradicts the other, and there is no sufficient balance of improbability to displace trial Judge's finding ass to truth of oral evidence, the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of the trial Judge on the question of fact.
Once the question if onus had been correctly determined it was not difficult for the learned District Judge to make a correct appreciation of the evidence, and to accept the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff in preference to that led on behalf of the defendants. This was sufficient reason for the preference male by the learned District Judge.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Petition dismissed;
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer