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 Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 488 and 489 of 1980, decided on 4th March, 1985.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Grant of‑‑Contention raised relating to question of fact decided by all three Courts against petitioners Case not fit for re‑opening question of fact at Supreme Court stage‑‑Petitions dismissed.
Abdul Hayee, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 4th March, 1985.
This order will dispose of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 488 and 489 of 1980; as both have been by the same person and involve the same question.
2. The facts giving rise to the petitions are briefly that Dr. Bal Kishan a Hindoo Evacuee left 4 properties in Mode: Town, Lahore, namely, Property Nos.90‑D, 91‑D, 92‑D and 93‑D. Out of these two properties namely 92‑D and 93‑D were banglows, which were transferred by the Settlement Department to Syed Ali Moazzam predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners.
Property No. 91‑D was an open site and was transferred to Mr. M.A. Effandi predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents (in Civil Petition No. 488/80), who had purchased it in an open auction. A P.T.D. was, therefore, issued in his favour.
Property No. 90‑D was transferred to Mr. Ghulam Bheek respondent (in Civil Petition No. 489/80) and a P.T.D. was also issued in his favour in respect of this property.
3. Syed Ali Moazzam aforesaid was, however, not satisfied with having obtained 2 banglows and also wanted to get an additional piece of land measuring 121 Marlas out of the properties transferred to the aforementioned two respondents, which according to him was situated in front of banglow No. 92‑D transferred to him and was being used as an approach to that banglow since before the partition. He, therefore filed two separate suits, one against Mr. M.A. Effandi and the other against Mr. Ghulam Bheek. Syed Ali Moazzam plaintiff died during the pendency of the suits and his legal heirs (the present petitioners) therefore, pursued the suits. The suits were, however, dismissed by the trial Court on 3‑6‑1970. The present petitioners thereupon filed two separate appeals which too were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore on 25‑10‑1971. They then filed regular second appeals before the High Court which met the same fate. Still not satisfied they have filed the present petitions before this Court for leave to appeal which are being disposed of by this order.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and have gone through the impugned judgments. As already mentioned above the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners (Syed Ali Moazzam) had got two banglows transferred to him against his claim, which, in fact, is not permissible under the Settlement Law. Yet he and now his predecessors‑in‑interest the petitioners herein), went to have an additional area of 121 Marlas, on the plea that it constitutes an approach Road to their banglow No. 92‑D transferred to them.
5. The contention raised by their learned counsel before us relates o question of fact which all the three Courts below have decided against them. We do not, therefore, consider this to be a fit case for re‑opening this question of fact at this stage. The two petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
M.I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer