The respondents filed suit on 14.12.2007 for declaration and mandatory injunction, claiming to be the legal heirs of Muhammad Ayub Khan son of Arsalah Khan. The petitioners (defendants 5–10) challenged that heirship — including a dispute touching on the adoption/acknowledgment of the deceased son of Arsalah. The courts below believed the respondents; the petitioners came to the Supreme Court in C.P.L.A.1157/2021. (The judgment spells the respondents' name 'Banaras Khan'.)
On 16.09.2026, a bench of Mr. Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan (author), Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan dismissed the petition and refused leave. The respondents had proved their heirship through NADRA records and Union Council records, corroborated by oral and documentary evidence. The Court held that official NADRA and Union Council records, so supported, constitute a substantive evidentiary basis for declarations of heirship.
One argument deservedly failed: the petitioners stressed the absence of a direct DNA comparison with the alleged parent. The Court held that the want of DNA evidence is not conclusive against parentage where the documentary and oral record otherwise establishes the relationship. Science assists proof; it does not monopolise it — heirship can be proved the way families have always proved it, through records and witnesses.
The precedent matters far beyond this family. In inheritance litigation, NADRA family trees and Union Council registers are often the first — and sometimes the only — paper trail. This judgment elevates them: properly corroborated, they are not mere administrative entries but substantive evidence of who inherits from whom. Kagaz jo sarkar ne banaya, adalat usay halka nahi legi — provided the witnesses back it up.