Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2718 2008 SLD 2718 2008 PLD 388
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 207 of 2000 and S.M.A. No. 10 of 1999, decided on 24th April, 2008, DATE of hearing: 15th April, 2008
ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J
Amir Aziz Khan for Plaintiffs. Hafiz Abdul Baqi for Defendant.

KHALIL RAHMAN AYUB and others--Plaintiffs

VS

Mrs. Syeda YASMIN ZAIDI--Defendant

Law:

Section:

(a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--- ----Ss. 278 & 295---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.61, 73 & 76(c)---Suit for issuance of letter of administration---Will---Claim of plaintiff that the Will had been executed in his favour by deceased was denied by defendant (Widow of deceased)---Proof---Plaintiff, instead of original Will produced in evidence Photocopy thereof---Plaintiff did not lead any independent evidence that deceased at the time of death, had left a Will---Plaintiff did not lead any evidence about destruction of original Will---Secondary evidence could not be led unless destruction of primary evidence was established by plaintiff by producing plausible and convincing evidence---Signatures of deceased on Will were denied by his widow---Widow would be presumed to be well acquainted and familiar with signature of her deceased husband, thus, her denial. of his signature would be of much significance---No suggestion was put to widow during cross-examination that Will bore signature of deceased and she was telling lie---Plaintiff did not bring on record any document to show admitted signature of deceased for comparison thereof with signature of deceased on Will---Nothing was on record to show that original was not traceable---Widow's denial about signature of her deceased husband was upheld in circumstances. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 133--Assertion made by witness in examination-in-chief not disputed or controverted in cross-examination---Effect---Such assertion would be deemed to have been accepted by opposite party---Principles. Muhammad Akhtar v. Manna and others 2001 SCMR 1700 rel. (c) Islamic Law--- ----Gift---Widow claimed property to have been gifted in her favour by her deceased husband---Proof---Age of one witness of widow at the time of declaration of gift in her favour was stated to be of 15-16 years---Such important declaration might not have been made by deceased in presence of a grown up youth---Had deceased gifted property in favour of his widow, then she would have got same mutated in record of rights during life time of deceased---Mere assertion of widow that she did not get property mutated in her name as…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492