ABDUL HAKEEM vs Mst — 2022 CLC 616 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ABDUL HAKEEM VS Mst. ALLAH DINI arts. 62 & 63---Relationship, proof of---Inquiry---Pedigree table---Petitioner's suit for declaration and permanent injunction against orders of Revenue authorities was decreed by the Trial Court---appeal of respondents was allowed---Petitioner contended that evidence on record proved that petitioner was a legal heir of deceased (being consanguine brother of deceased father of respondents/daughters); that appeals filed by respondents were time barred; that Foti Khata had been recorded in favour of petitioner after thorough inquiry including Jalsa-e-aam; that the said inquiry was not challenged; that mere non-disclosure of pedigree table in suit by itself was not fatal for suit; that it was never established that respondents belonged to Shia sect---Validity---after death of the deceased, on application of petitioner concerned assistant Mukhtiarkar had declared the petitioner to be the legal heir of deceased along with respondents/daughters of deceased---Respondents filed suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioner which was unconditionally withdrawn---Respondents filed appeal before District Officer Revenue which was allowed vide order against which petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by E.D.O. Revenue---Pedigree table by itself was not a proof of relationship which had to be proved independently by affirmative evidence regarding claim of relationship---On spot enquiry made by Mukhtiarkar revealed that petitioner was legal heir of the deceased and that deceased was a follower of Sunni sect and an order for mutation was made and implemented accordingly---Deputy District Officer conducted inquiry on order of District Officer and vide his inquiry report informed him that petitioner was legal heir of deceased---On spot inquiry was made through 3 persons (Nek-Mard) whereas the entire pedigree of the deceased was revealed that petitioner's claim was correct---District Officer Revenue could not disagree with the same inquiry report without any further inquiry and deliberations, but he passed an order contrary to the facts on record in slipshod manner without any reason/rhyme---E.D.O. Revenue failed to dilate upon the issue and had not given his own finding and his order was non-speaking order and without any reasoning---Orders of both officers i.e. D.O. Revenue and E.D.O. Revenue were not proper, against law, and had been passed in cursory manner---Respondents had approached the Revenue authorities after aborting their civil remedy, hence, burden upon them was on higher pedestal as compared to the one on the petitioner who came to assert some right or breach of his right---Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

ABDUL HAKEEM vs Mst — 2022 CLC 616 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLC