September 30, 2026
By Hashir Ahsan
ISLAMABAD
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has issued a detailed judgment on a civil petition regarding inheritance, the evidentiary value of DNA testing, and the legal proof of family relationships. A three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan upheld the decision of the Peshawar High Court (Abbottabad Bench), dismissing the petition filed by Barkat Khan and others.
The judgment establishes a significant legal precedent regarding inheritance disputes, the indirect application of DNA science, and judicial procedures regarding conflicting judgments from lower courts. The Court clarified that a claim to a biological father’s paternity or inheritance cannot be dismissed solely based on DNA tests obtained from indirect or distant relatives.
During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial court had correctly evaluated the evidence in dismissing the original suit. Counsel emphasized that a DNA test of the extended family members had been conducted—which they argued disproved the plaintiffs’ lineage—and contended that the appellate courts erred by ignoring this scientific evidence.
Conversely, counsel for the respondents (the original plaintiffs) supported the rulings of the appellate and High Courts, maintaining that their lineage was fully established through oral evidence and official records from NADRA and the Union Council.
After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court clarified that when trial and appellate court decisions conflict, the High Court is obligated to meticulously examine the complete record to determine which finding aligns with the evidence.
Addressing the scientific merit of genetic testing, the bench highlighted that the legal weight of a DNA test depends directly on whose samples are analyzed. If direct DNA comparison between father and child is impossible, tests conducted on distant relatives or cousins carry low evidentiary weight. Referring to international scientific literature and legal precedents, the Court noted that genetic analyses of indirect relatives offer merely statistical probabilities rather than definitive proof.
The Court also referenced Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, under which a child’s birth during a valid marriage is conclusive proof of legitimacy, which cannot be easily displaced by inconclusive secondary evidence.
Furthermore, the judgment underscored that DNA evidence must not be evaluated in isolation, but alongside all official and documentary evidence. The Court noted that official NADRA records, the death certificate from Union Council Dhamtour, photographs of graves, and marriage agreements consistently listed Arsala Khan as the father of Muhammad Ayub Khan—documents that the petitioners’ counsel failed to successfully rebut during cross-examination.
Consequently, the Apex Court held that treating the indirect DNA report as conclusive was legally flawed because it lacked a direct genetic sample from the deceased father. Finding no procedural or legal error in the High Court’s assessment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and restored the appellate court’s decree.
Case Background
The dispute originated on December 14, 2007, when Banaras Khan and other plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the civil court, claiming to be the legitimate legal heirs of Muhammad Ayub Khan (son of Arsala Khan), who passed away on October 10, 2006. On March 15, 2008, Barkat Khan and others were joined as defendants. The defendants contested the claim, alleging that the plaintiffs were actually the offspring of Faris Khan (son of Haibat Khan) and that an impersonation fraud had occurred.
The trial court initially dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit on July 13, 2011. However, the appellate court set aside that verdict on December 11, 2012, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. Barkat Khan and others subsequently challenged the decision via a revision petition in the Peshawar High Court, which was dismissed on February 22, 2021, leading to the final appeal before the Supreme Court.