Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 1269 of 1980, decided on 11th November,1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14‑6-1980 passed in Civil Revision No. 690/D of 1980).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Succession‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by two Courts on issue of succession‑‑High Court, after examination of issue, declined to interfere‑‑Order upheld by Supreme Court and leave to appeal refused.
Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 11th November, 1985.
‑The dispute in this petition relates to the succession of one Muhammad alias Haji Muhammad deceased as original tenant of a State land allotted by the Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 who had died somewhere in 1946 leaving behind sons and grandsons. The respondents brought a declaratory suit against the petitioners seeking relief to the effect that they may be declared owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the tenancy comprised of the suit land as heirs of Muhammad alias Haji Muhammad, a propositus. The suit was decided after hot contest on the basis of evidence and decreed by the learned Civil Judge First Class, Chishtian by his judgment, dated 30‑7‑1978. The petitioners unsuccessfully appealed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court before the Additional District Judge and latter before the High Court through a Civil Revision under section 115, C.P.C. The last order was passed by the Lahore High Court, on .14‑6‑1980 and is the subject‑matter of this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The decision on the issue of succession stands concluded by the concurrent findings of fact given by the learned two Courts below. The learned High Court had examined the issue and found no justification for interference.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and having gone through the record of the case, we are not persuaded to differ from the opinion of the learned Courts below as well as the refusal by the High Court to, interfere with in the matter. This petition deserves to be dismissed which we hereby do.
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