FEROZE Versus INAYAT HUSSAIN
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil revision dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' declaratory suit. The petitioners challenged an inheritance mutation in favour of the respondent, claiming to be the rightful heirs of the last male holder, whereas the respondent was recognized as the son of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the lower courts properly appraised the evidence regarding the paternity and inheritance rights of the respondent. The Supreme Court held that since the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts suffered from no material irregularity or illegality, and no substantial question of law was raised, the petition lacked merit and was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of any material irregularity, illegality, or question of law.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts where no material irregularity or illegality is pointed out?
- Can a civil revision be maintained against concurrent judgments of lower courts in the absence of a substantial question of law?
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.-- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Feroze and Bashir petitioners and is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 12th August, 1987 passed in Civil Revision No.686 of 1987.
2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners instituted a declaratory suit against Inayat Hussain respondent to the effect that they were owners in possession of the suit land being heirs of their real brother Muhammad Sharif the last male holder. They challenged the inheritance mutation of the said land sanctioned in favour of Inayat Hussain respondent by the Revenue authorities considering him as the son of said Muhammad Sharif. One of the main issues framed by the Civil Judge was as to whether Inayat Hussain respondent was not the son of Muhammad Sharif deceased. This issue was decided against the petitioners by the trial Court holding that Inayat Hussain respondent was the son of Muhammad Sharif deceased and, therefore, entitled to inherit his property. Thus, vide judgment dated 27th June, 1984 the suit of the petitioners was dismissed. The aforesaid judgment and decree were challenged by way of an appeal which was likewise dismissed by the learned District Judge Sialkot on 26th February, 1987. Thereafter both the judgments of the Courts below were challenged before the Lahore High Court, Lahore by way of a civil revision which was also dismissed. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that the evidence on facts has not been properly appraised by the Courts below. But this argument is without any force as the civil revision was dismissed in this case because learned counsel before the High Court was unable to point out any material irregularity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Since the findings of fact have been established as against the petitioners, and no point of law has been raised, we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
4. S. Q. /F-35/S Petition dismissed.