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 No116‑P of 1985, decided on 14th June, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 31st March, 1985 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in R.F.A. No. 6 of 1986).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Findings on question of fact not vitiated on account of misreading or non‑reading of any material evidence‑‑Supreme Court declining to interfere refused to grant leave to appeal.
Inayatullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
M. Sardar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th June, 1986.
The question for determination in the suit filed by the petitioners was whether their claim that they were exclusively entitled to the royalty fixed for the cutting of the trees from compartments 17 and 19, situated within the limits of the forest area, was well‑founded In this connection the petitioners placed reliance upon a partition deed, dated 25‑8‑1932 as also on the subsequent deed, dated 26‑6‑1961.
2. The learned trial Court negatived the claim of the petitioners holding that by the partition deed of 25‑8‑1932 only the Bandajat of the village, comprising pasture lands were partitioned but that there was no partition of the forest of the village and that this did not belong to the petitioners alone but continued to remain the joint property of the three tribes. The above finding was upheld, on appeal, by a Division Bench the Peshawar High Court who held that although Bandajat of the village comprising pasture lands were partitioned in the year 1932 but there was no partition of the forest of the village which continued to be the joint property of the three tribes. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Swat and the Division Bench of the High Court.
3. We have heard Mr. Inayat Ullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition and Mr. M. Sardar Khan who appeared in support of the caveat filed by the respondents.
4. The findings recorded by the Courts below are findings on questions of fact and Mr. Inayat Ullah Khan could not show that these findings stood vitiated on account of misreading or non‑reading of any material evidence. Accordingly, no ground for interference has been made out.
This petition fails and is dismissed hereby.
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