Chaudhry IQBAL HUSSAIN AND Another vs SUB MAJOR MUHAMMAD AMIN
This petition arises from a civil suit for the partition of joint property originally belonging to Mst. Rehmat Jan. The plaintiffs, including a son, a daughter, and heirs of a deceased daughter, sought partition, which was resisted by the defendants claiming ownership through an alleged will and gift in favor of the third daughter's husband. The core legal question concerned the validity and proof of the alleged will and gift, and whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts could be disturbed in second appeal. The Supreme Court held that no ground was made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court, and maintained by the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact on evidentiary matters will not be disturbed by the apex court in the absence of legal infirmity.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts in a partition suit?
- Can a second appeal be maintained against concurrent factual determinations regarding a disputed will and gift?
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petition arises from a suit for partition of joint property. The property belonged to Mst. Rehmat Jan who died in 1965. Her husband, too, died in 1970. They had a son and three daughters, one of whom was Vst. Amina who died in 1967. The son, one of the daughters viz. Mst. Sakina and the heirs of Mst. Amina brought a suit for partition of the property against Mst.
Zubaida Begum, the third daughter, and other defendants who resisted the suit claiming that Mst.
Rehmat Jan had transferred 1/3rd of the property by way of will and the remaining 2/3rd by gift in favour of Ch. Iqbal Hussain , husband of Mst, Zubaida Begum. The trial Court held that the defendants had failed to prove the alleged will and the gift and accordingly decreed the suit The finding was maintained by the appellate Court. The High Court, before which the petitioners/defendants brought second appeal refused to interfere with the concurrent finding of face recorded by the two lower Courts.
2. Learned counsel has taken us through the evidence but we find nothing to justify an interference with the finding of fact concurrently reached by the Courts below. The petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, 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.