MUHAMMAD IQBAL and other vs Hakeem IHSAN ULLAH QURESHI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the first appellate court and the second appellate court, which non-suited the petitioners on the basis of the principle of sinker due to a lack of proof of proportionate contribution towards the sale price of the suit-land by the vendees. The core legal question is whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by lower appellate courts based on the appreciation of evidence. The court held that no interference is warranted where the lower courts have not misread evidence or omitted material evidence, and the mere possibility of a different conclusion does not justify interference. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence.
- Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower appellate courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does the mere possibility of a different conclusion justify interference with concurrent findings of fact?
- What is the effect of failing to prove proportionate contribution by vendees towards the sale price of the suit-land?
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- It had been concurrently found by the two learned Courts i.e, the learned first appellate Court and the Honourable second Appellate Court that there was no proof of proportionate contribution by the vendees towards the sale price of the suit-land. Such conclusion had been reached by the learned Courts after examination of the effect of the statements of Fateh Muhammad Lambardar (D.W.2), Dawood (D.W.6) and Muhammad Iqbal (D.W.5).
2. We have heard the learned senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners at some length and have also examined the record in the light of the submissions made by him.
3. The learned counsel could not show as to how the case in hand was one of misreading of any piece of evidence or a case where the two Appellate Courts had omitted to consider any material available on record. Mere possibility of someone coming to a conclusion different from the one concurrently reached by the two learned Courts is hardly a ground which could justify interference by this Court with such concurrent conclusions.
4. In this view of the matter, no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment of the learned High Court as a result whereof the petitioners had been non-suited on the basis of the principle of sinker.
5. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.