Pakistan Case Law← Search
1984 SCMR 1022

MUHAMMAD AKBAR AND OTHERS vs NASAR JAMA SHAH AND OTHERS

Citation1984 SCMR 1022
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Appeal No, 18-P of 1975 Civil Revision No, 246 of 1972
Date1984-05-01
Judge(s)Mian Burhanuddin Khan, Nasim Hasan Shah, Aslam Riaz Hussain
ResultOrder grant

1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-Muhammad Azim, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed a suit to pre-empt the.. Sale of the land measuring 2 kanals 5 marlas allegedly made by Mst. Begum Jan wife of Muzzaffar Shah in favour of Mukhtar Din, which suit was decreed.

2. ' The heirs of Mst. Begum Jan, who had, in the meanwhile died, brought a suit against the alleged vendees and the pre-emptor for declaration that the sale of Mst. Begum Jan of the land was fictitious, fraudulent and without consideration and, therefore, ineffective as against the vendor and after her death, her heirs the plaintiffs. The suit was contested by Muhammad Azim (the pre- emptor). The learned trial Court decreed the suit on the finding that there was no valid sale by Mst.

3. Begum Jan. On appeal by Muhammad Azim, the decree of the learned trial Court was maintained by the learned District Judge, against which a revision was taken by Muhammad Azim before the High Court, which was dismissed by it in limine vide order dated 16-4-1964. The learned Single Judge opined that the fact that there was no valid sale by Mst. Begum Jan in favour of Mukhtar Din stood concluded by a concurrent finding of fact and this was not open in revision under section 115, C. P. C.

4. ' The pre-emptor having died in the meantime, his heirs filed a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 16-4-1964 and leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide its order, dated 6-2-1975 to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to question, in revisional jurisdiction, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below.

5. ' The appeal has now come up for hearing before us.

6. ' After having heard the learned counsel for the parties we consider that this was not a fit and proper case wherein leave to appeal could or should have been granted. We would, accordingly, rescind the order dated 6-2-1975 granting leave to appeal, with the result that the petition shall stand dismissed.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search