NOUROZ KHAN Versus ZULEKHA

ORDER

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J‑‑ ‑This petition is directed against the order of High Court of Sindh dated 17‑4‑1994. The facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Mst. Zulekha (the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents) in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Karachi. It was averred in the plaint that he had purchased the disputed house from Mst. Zulekha (defendant) for Rs.19,000 vide sale‑deed dated 23‑2‑1970 and ever since the purchase is in continuous possession of the same but on 17‑1‑1985 the defendant tried to take over the possession of the house by force. The suit was resisted. The issues were framed. The parties produced their evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 20‑5‑1990. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Karachi (West) on 18‑2‑1993. Feeling still aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi which was also dismissed on 17‑4‑1994.

2. The petitioner has appeared in person. He raised the following points before us:‑‑

(1) That the evidence produced by him has wrongly been disbelieved.

(2) That the evidence on record will show that having purchased the disputed house from the defendant for consideration, he was owner of the same and entitled to the decree prayed for.

(3) That the sale‑deed dated 23‑2‑1970 bears the genuine thumb‑impression of Mst. Zulekha (defendant) the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents.

3. The petitioner is not represented by counsel. We have carefully considered the matter. The question of ownership of the disputed house is a question of fact. All the three Courts have concurrently found that the petitioner was not the owner of the disputed property through purchase. The findings arrived at by the three Courts do not suffer from misreading/non‑reading of the evidence, The Courts below could believe or disbelieve the evidence. The Courts have applied conscious mind to the relevant evidence and given sound and cogent reasons in support of their decisions. We do not see any compelling reasons to interfere with the impugned judgments/decrees.

4. No case is made out for interference. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.

A.A./N‑394/S Leave refused.