Indicative Evidence Explains
S J Tubrazy
The terms “indicate”, “indication” and “indicative”, according to The Oxford Universal Dictionary, mean as under.
Indicate: To point out, point to, make known, show (more or less distinctly). To point as a remedy or treatment. To be a sign or symptom of. To point out, direct attention to. To point to with the hand or by gesture: To state or express; to express briefly, lightly, or without development; to give an indication of.
Indication: The action of indicating; that in which this is embodied; a hint, suggestion. A suggestion or direction as to the treatment of a disease, derived from the symptoms. A sign, token or symptom an expression by sign or token.
Indicative: That points out, states, or declares; applied to that mood of a verb which states a relation of objective fact between the subject and predicate. That indicates, points out, or directs; that hints or suggests. The indicative mood; a verb in the indicative mood.
In Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, 1979 publication, concise and opt legal meanings of the above words are:
Indication: In the law of evidence, a sign or token, a fact pointing to some inference or conclusion.
Indicative Evidence: This is not evidence properly so called, but the mere suggestion of evidence proper, may possibly by procured, if suggestion is followed up.
Viewed from the above dictionary meanings, the term “indicative” expands the definition of Talb-i-Muwathibat and broadens its scope even to the suggestive words signifying the intention to exercise right of pre-emption. It thus enables each and every intending pre-emptor to declare, state or express such intention according to his capability and capacity. It is for this reason that defines Talb-i-Muwathibat as “the declaration of intention,”through any words” which if indicative of such intention are to be accepted as “sufficient”.
The logic and rationale of not prescribing in the Statute a definite form and mode for expressing Talb-i-Muwathibat is not difficult to comprehend. Human expressions cannot be standardized. The words and expressions of each man are normally different from the other. The linguistic constructions and combinations vary from person to person. Such is the variety of the human expressions. Occasionally the words can, be the same but not expressions. God has willed the human beings to be so. It is in their Divine design and also in their evolution to remain different despite homogeneity of influences of the families, cultures, societies, systems, religions, moralities, education, genes and orientations. No law, therefore, can or be expected to provide for a straight jacket or “one-size-fit-all” formula for the personal behaviors, acts or expressions for all the citizens of the State. Otherwise being non compatible to the normal and natural human conduct, its enforcement will remain questionable.
(The writer is corporate and banking lawyer in Pakistan)