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 for Special Leave to Appeal No. 891 of 1985, decided12th October, 1986.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑7‑1985 in C.R. No. 1506 of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by three Courts below rendered against petitioners after perusal of record‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere, there being no law point for consideration.
Hakam Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners
S.M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th October, 1986.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 27‑7‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, whereby petitioner's Civil Revision arising out of respondents' suit for possession of a house, was dismissed.
According to the facts given by the learned counsel the respondent‑side claiming to be the owner of the house in dispute sought ejectment of the petitioners there from through an application made before the Rent Controller. The petitioners raised the plea of lack of relationship of landlord and tenant whereupon the respondent withdrew the application and filed a suit for possession based on title. The petitioners pleaded denial of ownership as also their adverse possession. Nevertheless the suit was decreed. The petitioners' appeal and revision having failed, they have now sought leave to appeal.
Learned counsel tried to show that the evidence led before the learned trial Court has not been properly considered by the Courts below. He has relied upon the same material which was noticed by the High Court and was not considered enough to come to a conclusion either that the petitioners have title in the house in dispute or that the title has matured in their favour on account of adverse possession.
All the three Courts having considered the material relied upon by the petitioners have rendered concurrent findings of fact against them. No justification has been made out for interference by this Court in the findings of fact. No law point has been urged. This petition fails and it is accordingly 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