NASRULLAH and others vs MUHAMMAD ZAHEER and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a civil revision arising from a suit for possession through partition. The plaintiffs-respondents sought partition of a house, which the defendants-petitioners resisted by claiming a prior private partition had occurred, relying on a partition document (Exh.D.10). The trial court decreed the suit, and both the appellate court and the High Court maintained this decision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the partition document and found that it pertained to an entirely different property and had no nexus with the suit property. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact, reiterating that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of jurisdictional error, legal defect, or misreading or non-reading of evidence. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of jurisdictional error, legal defect, or misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Can a plea of prior private partition succeed if the supporting documentary evidence relates to a different property than the suit property?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 17-1-2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,2129 of 2007.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are to the effect that plaintiffs-respondents herein had instituted a suit for possession through partition of House No,2640-A situated in Mohallah Naichanwala, Khushab. The suit was contested by the defendants-petitioners who filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint raising some preliminary objections, specifically asserting therein that the plaintiffs-respondents had no concern with the suit property, their predecessor-ininterest had themselves made private partition of the property and every share-holder is in occupation of his respective share. From the factual controversies appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed various issues. After recording, appreciating evidence of the parties, pro and contra, the learned trial Court passed a preliminary decree of partition of the property, vide judgment and decree dated 8-2-2007. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants/petitioners preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge Khushab, who vide his judgment, dated 11-7-2007 dismissed the same. The revision petition filed by the petitioners in the Lahore High Court, Lahore had also been dismissed, vide the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the record with his kind assistance.
4. The whole case of the petitioner rests on a document of partition (Exh.D.10) . From minute perusal of the said document, it reveals that this document pertained to some other property and it has no nexus with the property in dispute. The property mentioned in the document (Exh.D.10) is the house located in "Chowk Zargran" and a shop located in Mohallah "Sanochvan" in Khushab, while the property subject-matter of the present suit is a house located in Mohallah Naichanwala in Khushab. The trial Court, Appellate Court as well as the High Court after taking into consideration the oral as well as the documentary evidence of the parties, decreed the suit. There are concurrent findings of fact by the three Courts and this Court would not interfere in such findings in absence of any jurisdictional error or legal defect or misreading or non-reading of evidence as laid down in the cases of Muhammad Zubair and others v. Muhammad Sharif 2005 SCM R 1217 and Faiz Muhammad and others v. Mukhtar Ali 2005 SCMR 1077. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court which is unexceptionable.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.