ATA HUSSAIN vs RIAZ HUSSAIN And Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit for the partition of a shop, wherein the trial court passed a preliminary decree determining the respective shares of the parties and appointed a Local Commissioner to report on the partibility of the property. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the preliminary decree through a first appeal before the Additional District Judge and subsequently via a second appeal in the High Court. The core legal question concerned the determination of the shares of the parties in the property. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the finding regarding the shares was correctly based upon the clear admission made by the petitioner himself in previous litigation, rendering the matter unfit for interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a party's unequivocal admission in prior litigation regarding property shares forms a valid and unassailable basis for concurrent findings in subsequent partition proceedings.
- Can a party challenge a preliminary decree determining property shares when the finding is based on their own admission in previous litigation?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding property shares supported by an admission?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit for partition of a shop brought by the respondents. By its judgment dated 20-6-1974 the trial Court passed a preliminary decree determining the share of the respondents as 134/176 and that of the petitioner as 42/176. It also appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the spot and report inter alia whether the shop was partible or not. The petitioner filed an appeal against the preliminary decree before the Additional District Judge but without any success. He then filed a second appeal in the High Court which too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The only question that has been decided in the preliminary decree relates to the extent of shares of the parties in the shop. The finding with regard to shares is based upon the admission of the petitioner himself in the previous litigation. That being so, this is not a fit case for interference by this Court. Dismissed.