MUMTAZ AHMAD KHAN vs GHULAM NABI and others
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the district court regarding a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether the agreement for the sale of a plot was valid and enforceable, specifically addressing the petitioners' contention that the plot was non-transferable and the agreement violated allotment terms. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitions, holding that the lower courts correctly determined the facts. The Court found that the plot in question was an exempted property with no prohibition on transfer, and the execution of the agreement was substantiated by credible evidence. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts, supported by cogent reasoning and evidence, do not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction unless a legal infirmity or illegality is demonstrated. As the petitioners failed to identify any such error, the Court refused leave to appeal, maintaining the lower courts' decrees.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts can be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of legal infirmity?
- Does the exemption of a plot from transfer restrictions validate an agreement to sell that property?
- Is an agreement to sell enforceable when the execution of the document is substantiated by credible evidence?
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- These petitions are directed against a consolidated judgment, dated 22-2-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dismissed the civil revisions filed by the petitioners maintaining the earlier determinations of the two Courts below i,e, the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Rahimyar Khan and the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, rendered through judgments, dated 24-4-1996 and 16- 12-1998 respectively.
2. The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of these petitions are that respondent No,1 filed on 1-7- 1985 a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 25-7-1979. The petitioners Mumtaz Ahmad Khan and his wife Mst. Mumtaz Elahi also filed two suits subsequently; the former sought cancellation of the aforesaid agreement and the special power of attorney while the latter sought a declaration that the disputed plot was given to her by her husband in lieu of her dower. All the three suits were consolidated by the trial Court. Issues were framed and the parties led their evidence. The learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Rahimyar Khan, through his judgment dated 24-4-1996 decreed the suit of respondent Ghulam Nabi and dismissed the other two suits filed by the petitioners. Three appeals were preferred by the petitioners assailing the above judgment, which were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, vide his judgment, dated 16-12-1998.
Three civil revisions filed by the petitioners against the above judgment before the Lahore High Court at Bahawalpur Bench were also dismissed by a learned Single Judge through his judgment, dated 22-2-2000, impugned herein. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents annexed with the petitions with their assistance. The plea of the petitioners that the disputed plot was non-transferable and the agreement, dated 25-7-1979 was violative of the terms and conditions of the allotment is devoid of any force. It is reflected from the perusal of the impugned judgments that the said plot was an exempted one and there was no prohibition on its transfer. The execution of the agreement has been substantiated on record through confidence inspiring evidence. A question of fact has been determined by the two Courts below i,e, the learned Civil Judge and the learned District Judge, which determination has been maintained by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by advancing cogent reasons.
Learned counsels for the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments warranting interference by this Court.
4. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petitions being devoid of any merit are hereby dismissed and leave refused.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAKEEL AHMAD vs ABDUL GHAFFAR and others 2009 YLR 1384