Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 — Section 55: Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc

55. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction.— A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court in the exercise of probate matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof that any legal character which it confers accrued, at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation ; that any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person; that any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or should cease; and that anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property. 56. Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Article 55.— Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Article 55 are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry ; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state. Illustrations A sues B for trespass or his land, B alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which A denies. The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land, in which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists.