Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. No. 538‑R f 1983, decided on 16th November, 1983.

(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 3rd May, 1983, passed in Revision Petition No. 104 of 1983)

---Art. 185 (3)‑Dispute over inheritance of property‑--Concurrent findings on questions of fact by Courts below‑Contention raised on behalf, of petitioner amounting to request requiring Court to reappraise evidence and reverse concurrent finding of fact‑Held, cannot be accepted‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑[Muhammadan law].

Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 16th November, 1983.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) dated 3rd May. 1983, dismissing their civil revision.

2. Facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that Malik Imdad Ali Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, filed a stilt against the res pondents seeking a declaration to the effect that he was the sole heir of Mst. Fazal Jan widow of Fatal Din, and that the respondents had no right to inherit the property in question. As a consequential relief he sought a per petual injunction against the said respondents. restraining them to receive rent of 'the property in dispute from the tenants. It was however, ad mitted that the said property was in possession of the respondents.

3. The suit was contested by the respondents who gifted the property Mst. Fazal Jan was their step‑mother and that she had gifted the property in question to them on 16‑11‑1968 through a registered gift deed.

4. Five issues were struck on the pleadings of the parties out of which the material issues were as follows :‑‑

"(1) Whether Imdad Ali was the only legal heir of Mst. Fazal Jan deceased and as such he is owner of the disputed property

(1‑A) Whether Mst. Fazal Jan deceased had gifted away the disputed property to the defendants. If so, its effect

Imdad Ali died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives (petitioners herein) have been pursuing the suit.

The learned trial Court held the first issue against the plaintiff while it held the second issue in favour of the defendants‑respondents.

Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge on 25‑1‑1983. They then filed a civil revision before the High Court which, too, met the same fate.

Hence the present petition.

6. It would be noticed that both the above‑noted issues, on which the decision of the case hinges, relate to questions of fact, on which the three Courts, below have given concurrent findings. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner only amounted to a request requiring us to reappraise the evidence and reverse the above‑noted concurrent find ings of fact arrived at by the learned lower Courts. We are afraid in the circumstances of this case we do not consider it proper to do so. Leave is, therefore, refused.

S. Q. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.