Mst. RUQAYYA BEGUM vs ALTAF QUTAB And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the demarcation of property boundaries between two bungalows transferred by Settlement authorities to the petitioner and the respondent, respectively. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their factual determination that the disputed garage and servant quarters were situated within the respondent's property, specifically regarding the alleged failure of the courts below to consider certain evidentiary documents (Exhibits P.5 to P.7). Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had properly considered the evidence and that the findings were factually sound. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The petition was dismissed as having no force. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless a material misreading or non-reading of evidence is clearly demonstrated, which was not established in this instance.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding property boundaries?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the lower courts have properly considered the evidence on record?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Mst. Ruqayya Begum has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 17-10 1978, dismissing her R.S.A. (No. 306 of 1973).
2, The matter relates to demarcation of boundary of the bungalows transferred by the Settlement authorities to the petitioner and the respondent. The net result of the litigation is that it has been found by the courts below that the garrage and the servant quarter, which are subject-matter of the dispute, are situated in the bungalow transferred to the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that this finding is not correct, and that the learned Courts below have not considered certain documents (Exhs. P.5 to P.7) placed on the record: After going through the judgments of the Courts below, however, is not correct. We do not, therefore, thin+ we feel that the contention that this case warrants interference by this Court.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no force.