GHULAM HUSSAIN And Another vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Other
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing their civil revision arising from a suit for possession of a house based on a sale-deed dated 5-8-1947. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in deciding issue No. 5 regarding whether the sale-deed was fictitious, fraudulent, and forged. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by all three courts below were based on a careful consideration of the evidence and did not warrant interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed as having no merit, affirming that concurrent findings of fact on questions of fraud and forgery do not justify interference under leave to appeal jurisdiction.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by three courts below regarding the validity of a sale-deed?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against a High Court judgment dismissing a civil revision on a question of fact?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 4-12-1979, dismissing their civil revision.
2. The petitioners had filed a suit for possession of the house which they claimed to have purchased through a sale-deed dated 5-8-1947. Seven issues were framed. Out of these the main issue (i.e Issue No. 5) reads as follows:-- "(5) Whether the sale-deed, dated 5-8-1947 is fictitious, fraudulent and forged, and if so, what effect, O.P.D.?"
It is evident that this issue relates to, is a question of fact and all the three Courts below have decided against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the learned Court, below have ignored material evidence on the record.
4. We have carefully considered this contention but are of the view that the learned Courts below have carefully considered the evidence referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and reached a correct conclusion. The matter, therefore does not warrant interference' by this Court.
5. The petition is consequently dismissed as having no merit. 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.