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 Revision No.5‑D of 1980/BWP, decided on 22nd May,19
‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order (10 of 1984), Art. 100 Divorce deed‑‑Authenticity‑‑Presumption‑‑Divorce deed purported to have be executed in year 1948 was not attached with plaint before trial Court Such deed was produced before Court after about one year of filing suit and request was made to tender it in evidence after about 4 yep of its filing‑‑Such divorce deed, held, could safely be said was not years old at time of its production and on date when same was soul to be tendered in evidence.
M. M. Bhatti for Petitioners.
Sardar Mehmood Khan and Sardar Najam‑ud‑Din Khan for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1984.
On 28‑5‑1973 Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Sharif petitioners filed suit against Bashir Ahmad and others for declaration that they are heirs of Mst. Fazlan Bibi as her brothers and that Bashir Ahmad was not entitled to inherit her because he had divorced Mst. Fazlan Bibi on 20‑7‑1948 and as such Mutations Nos. 1008 and 1118 of inheritance in favour of the respondents were illegal, void and ineffective upon their rights. The suit was contested whereon four issues were framed.
The appeal filed by the petitioners‑plaintiff failed on 12‑11‑1979, hence this revision.
2. Before me the findings of the Courts below on Issue No.2 alone to have been challenged. The issue is as under:
"Issue No.2.‑‑Whether the defendant had divorced Mst. Fazlan and as such the plaintiffs are heirs of said Mst. Fazlan and owners in possession of the suit land left by Mst. Fazlan " O. P. P.
3. The learned counsel has mainly argued that the divorce deed, dated 20‑4‑1948 being 30 years old document was per se admissible and as such should have been taken into account and acted upon without formal proof thereof. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the contention of the learned counsel that divorce deed when presented before the Court was a 30 years old document is factually incorrect. The Talaq deed purports to have been executed on 20‑7‑1948. The same was not attached with the plaint. It was produced before the Courts on 22‑4‑1974. On 15‑3‑1978 and application was moved for permission to tender the document in evidence.
The prayer was rejected on 17‑4‑1978. In this view of the matter, it can safely be said that the document was not 30 years old at the time of its production and on the date when the same was sought to be tendered in evidence.
5. For what has been stated above, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
H . B . T . Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer