PHAPU vs Mst. FEROZEE BIBI and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision and maintaining the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had dismissed the petitioner's declaratory suit claiming inheritance. The core legal question involved the determination of the factual status of the respondents as legal heirs of the deceased Rustam Khan. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts and affirmed by the High Court, based on a proper appreciation of evidence including a report filed by the petitioner himself acknowledging the widow and daughters of the deceased, suffered from no illegality or legal infirmity. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact concurrently recorded by the courts below and upheld by the High Court in civil revision?
- Can a petitioner challenge concurrent factual determinations regarding inheritance without pointing out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments?
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 1-2-2000 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No,446 of 1987 filed by the petitioner was dismissed maintaining the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner filed a declaratory suit that he along with his sister Mst. Rehmani were the only heirs of Rustam Khan deceased, their father. It was further averred that Mst. Ferozee Bibi, respondent No,1, had got no connection whatsoever with the deceased Rustam Khan. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 were impleaded as party being the daughters of aforesaid Rustam Khan during the pendency of the suit. They challenged the stance taken by the petitioner. Issues were framed and the parties led their evidence. The learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated 26- 6-1985 dismissed the suit. An appeal was filed against the same, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 11-2-1987. The civil revision filed by the petitioner before the Lahore High Court also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge through his judgment, dated 1-2-2000, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire documents appended with this petition. A question of fact after thrashing the entire evidence has been determined by the two Courts below i,e, the learned trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court, which determination has been upheld by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court while dismissing the civil revision filed by the petitioner. It would be appropriate to reproduce his determination in this regard which is in the following terms:-- "Issue No,6 reflected the controversy between the parties. The same was decided against the petitioner/plaintiff and it was found that Mst. Ferozee was widow of Rustam Khan deceased; whereas, Mst. Nasreen and Mst. Zahida were his daughters. In order to remove any doubt and to satisfy itself the learned District Judge had the occasion to peruse some more documents made available to him. On considering the evidence already on record and perusing the documents, he also came to the same conclusion that Rustam Khan deceased had married Mst. Ferozee Bibi and had daughters, namely, Mst. Nasreen and Mst. Zahida out of the said marriage. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have also perused the evidence, placed on record, the perusal of which also leads to the same conclusion as has been drawn by the two Courts below. There is a report dated 13-9-1978, made by Bhappo, the petitioner, that A his brother Rustam Khan had died. The said report finds mention that the deceased Rustam Khan had a widow and two daughters."
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
5. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed and leave refused.