Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 340‑R of 1979, decided on 29th March, 1982.

‑‑ Art. 199‑Constitutional jurisdiction ‑Unrebutted documents available on record=No further inquiry needed‑Interest of justice, held, not served if case remanded by High Court instead of deciding same itself, when already taken about 28 years.

‑‑ S. 78‑Inheritance‑Dispute regarding inheritance of widow of deceased right‑holder dying in India‑Pedigree‑table received duly attested by Second Secretary of High Commission in India remaining unrebutted‑Evidence Act, not applicable to proceedings before Claims or Settlement Authorities‑Settlement Commissioner, held, duty bound to have looked into content of such document and decide matter on merits‑Petitioners collaterals of deceased land owner under (common ancestor‑Land devolved on widow showing succession under custom ‑ Females not entitled to any inheritance under custom prevailing in family and collateral on other hand inheriting‑Orders passed in favour of petitioners maintained in circumstances.‑ [Muhammadan Law].

Mian Abdul Latif for Petitioners.

Jahangir A. Jhojha for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th March, 1982.

The learned counsel assails to the order dated 22nd October, 1978 passed by the Settlement Commissioner (Land) in pursuance to an order of remand passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 448‑R of 1963 upholding the order dated 19th April, 1961 passed by the Additional Deputy Com missioner (Consolidation) with powers of Collector, Gujranwala.

2. The dispute in this case is with regard to the inheritance of Mst. Sharifan widow of Ramzan, a deceased right‑holder, who died in India. A mutation of succession to his estate was attested in favour of the petitioners as collaterals to the exclusion of the respondents 1 to 3 on 9th June, 1954. It may be noted that the respondents 1 and 3 are daughters of Allah Bakhsh, a brother of Ramzan deceased right‑holder. A protracted litigation followed thereon shuttling the matter between various Courts.

Ultimately, a writ petition No. 448‑R of 1963 was filed by the petitioners. It was accepted vide order dated 8th April. 1975 with a direction to bear the parties and decided the case in the light of certain observation made in the order.

3. The case was then taken up by the Settlement Commissioner (Land) who upheld the order of 1961 mainly on the ground that the pedigreetable produced before him did not answer the requirement of section 78 of the Evidence Act.

4. It is to be noted that the pedigreetable in question, as described by the Settlement Commissioner, was brought from India. It was counter signed by the Second Secretary of the High Commission in India. A copy of the same had been placed on the record of previous writ petition filed in 1963. The respondents uptil this date have not produced any docu ments showing that the contents of that pedigreetable are not correct. The Evidence Act as such does .not apply to the proceedings before the Claims or the Settlement Authorities. In this view of the matter, it was the duty of the Settlement Commissioner to have looked into the contents of the said document so as to decide the matter on merits.

5. Normally, this case should be sent back to the departmental authority to reconsider the same and decide it on its merits. However, as no inquiry is to be made and pedigreetable which is to be looked upon is already on the record unrebutted, I do not think it will serve the interest of justice to remand it again, particularly when it has already taken about 28 years.

6. Both the learned counsel have gone through the pedigreetable. It is quite clear thereform that the present petitioners are the collaterals or Ramzan son of Ghulam Hussain, the deceased right‑holder. Their common, ancester is Mohkam. The land had devolved on Mst. Sharifan to show that succession was under custom. There is neither any document on the record nor is it the case of the learned counsel for the respondents that even females were entitled to any inheritance under the Custom prevailing in that family in India. The collaterals on the other hand did inherit. In this view of the matter, the orders passed in favour of the petitioners on 9th June, 1954 and 25th September, 1957 were in accordance with law and valid had not been rightly interfered with.

7. All the other orders passed by other authorities are, therefore, declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that petition succeeds and the two orders referred to above passed in favour of the petitioners are maintained. They shall be implemented in accordance with law, in all the relevant records.

There will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.