NAZIR AND Others vs Syed ISRAR AHMAD ETC:S
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a civil suit for possession of property, which was decreed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent by the Civil Judge and subsequently upheld by the District Judge and the High Court in a regular second appeal. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, arguing that the property in dispute did not belong to the plaintiff by virtue of the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued to him. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether the lower courts erred in their factual determination regarding the ownership of the disputed roof or 'barsati' area above a shop. The Court held that the challenge to the ownership was essentially a question of fact already thoroughly examined by the courts below, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate any misreading or omission of evidence. The Court affirmed the principle that, absent specific exclusions, the transfer of a shop includes the space from the ground to the sky. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
- Does the transfer of a shop include the space from the ground to the sky unless otherwise specified?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be reopened in a petition for special leave to appeal without demonstrating misreading or omission of evidence?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--Tufail Ahmad, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 26th May, 1969. The defendants/petitioners filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 1st ,April, 1974. The petitioners then filed a regular second appeal being R. S. A. 164/1974 which was dismissed by the High Court on 7th July, 1975. The petitioners have now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding of the Courts below that the property in dispute belonged to the plaintiff respondents by virtue of P. T. D. Issued to him was not correct. This is a question of fact and has been thrashed out by all the Court below and cannot be reopened specially when the learned counsel ha not been able to point out any omission or misreading of evidence. It may be mentioned that the precise portion in dispute is the roof or the barsati over the shop which stands transferred to the plaintiff Tufail Ahmad. It is obvious, that unless otherwise mentioned the transfer of the shop would mean the transfer from bottom to the sky, as is the position in this case.
3. The result is that the petition has no merit and is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 12 cases
- Mst. ABIDA RASHID vs ASHIQ HUSSAIN And Otherss 2011 YLR 2399
- MUHAMMAD IDREES and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and 15 others 2004 MLD 2002
- Muhammad Idrees and 2 others vs Muhammad Younus and 15 others 2005 C.L.R. 929
- MUHAMMAD IDREES and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and others 2005 PLJ Lahore 342
- Muhammad Idrees And 2 Other vs Muhammad Younus And 12 Other K.L.R. 2006 Civil Cases 128
- Muhammad Idrees and 2 others vs Muhammad Younus and 12 others 2006 C.L.R. 49
- Mst. AISHA BIBI vs SHAHID IQBAL QURESHI 2004 PLJ Lahore 1317
- Mst. AISHA BIBI Versus SHAHID IQBAL QURESHI 2004 MLD 1158
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs Malik SIKANDAR And OTHER 1994 CLC 2300
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus ABDUL GHANI , Yousaf Rafi, Advocate-on-Record 1994 SCMR 487
- ILLAHI BUX vs The ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 3 others 1985 CLC 1321
- Haji FAQIR ALI vs SIRAJ DIN AND ANOTHER 1984 CLC 1004