Mst. REHANA ZEB vs Dr. MATWARRA HUSSAIN and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against concurrent judgments of the trial court, appellate court, and the revisional court, which dismissed the petitioner's suit regarding the ownership of a house in Satellite Town, Rawalpindi. The core legal dispute involved conflicting claims of inheritance and an alleged oral gift: the petitioner claimed ownership of half the property through inheritance and the remaining half through an oral gift from her mother, while the respondents claimed to be legal heirs entitled to the property. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts had committed any material misreading or non-reading of evidence that would warrant interference with their concurrent findings. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error. The Court determined that even if the evidence cited by the petitioner were interpreted as suggested, it would not alter the outcome reached by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court found no substance in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be disturbed absent material misreading.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts if no material misreading of evidence is established?
- Does an alleged oral gift of property require specific evidentiary proof to override claims of legal heirs?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to show that re-evaluating evidence would lead to a different conclusion?
ORDER
' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.---This petition has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the three Courts below i,e, trial Court, appellate Court and the provisional Court whereby the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff was dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties revolves around a house No,218-E, Satellite Town, and Rawalpindi whereby the plaintiff respondent who is the daughter of the original owner states that she is the owner of the half. Of the house by way of inheritance while the half of the house has been transferred to her through an oral gift by her mother while on the other hand the respondents claim is that they are the legal heirs of the original owner and they have inherited the remaining one half in the house. The evidence was led pro and contra and as a result of the contest of the parties the suit was decided in favor of the respondents which was upheld by the appellate as well as the revision Courts.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain portions of the evidence and according to him the petitioner has been able to prove her case and which evidence was not adverted to by the three Courts below.
4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and also the evidence which was referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we did not find any misreading or non-reading of the material evidence of the nature if read in accord the manner the petitioner's counsel suggest, even then that would not result in a conclusion different from the one arrived by the Courts. We, therefore, see no substance in this petition and the same is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- AMIR ZADA Versus Haji AHMAD NOOR 2016 CLC 1628
- RIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus KHADIM MUHAMMAD 2014 PLD 21