Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition No. 254‑R of 1982, decided on 4th July, 1983.
(On appeal from the order dated 2a‑10‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, passed in R. S. A. No. 230 of 1982).
----Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑Partition suit‑Petitioner in trial Court failing to prove "will" and "gift" and suit decreed accordingly Finding maintained by appellate Court‑High Court in second appeal refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by two lower Courts‑Nothing in evidence on record found by Supreme Court justifying interference with finding of Courts below‑Petition dismissed.
Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Muhammad Aslam Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing : 4th July, 1983.
The petition arises from a suit for partition of joint property. The property belonged to Mst. Rehmat Jan who died in 1965. Her husband, too, died in 1970. They had a son and three daughters, one of whom was Vst. Amina who died in 1967. The son, one of the daughters viz. Mst. Sakina and the heirs of Mst. Amina brought a suit for partition of the property against Mst. Zubaida Begum, the third daughter, and other defendants who resisted the suit claiming that Mst. Rehmat Jan had transferred 1/3rd of the property by way of will and the remaining 2/3rd by gift in favour of Ch. Iqbal Hussain , husband of Mst, Zubaida Begum. The trial Court held that the defendants had failed to prove the alleged will and the gift and accordingly decreed the suit The finding was maintained by the appellate Court. The High Court, before which the petitioners/defendants brought second appeal refused to interfere with the concurrent finding of face recorded by the two lower Courts.
2. Learned counsel has taken us through the evidence but we find nothing to justify an interference with the finding of fact concurrently reached by the Courts below. The petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
M.Z.M Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer