Mst. KHURSHID BIBI vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
This matter arises from a petition filed against the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts and the refusal of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the same. The core legal question for consideration was whether the area of the portion of the house sold by the petitioner to the respondent through a sale deed dated 8-8-1970 was less than the area actually recited in the said sale deed. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's counsel failed to demonstrate any legal or factual infirmity in the concurrent findings reached by the trial Court and the Additional District Judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. 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 established infirmity.
- Whether the area of the portion sold under a sale deed was less than what was recited in the deed?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact that show no infirmity?
- Will revisional jurisdiction be exercised to overturn concurrent factual findings without proof of error?
ORDER
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ----By a sale deed dated 8-8-1970 the petitioner sold a portion of her, house to the respondent. The question for consideration in this petition is whether the area of the portion sold by the petitioner was less than what was actually recited in the sale deed. The trial Court as well as the Additional District Judge decided this question against the petitioner and the High Court; in revisional jurisdiction, declined to interfere with the finding. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the finding of the subordinate Courts on the question suffers from any infirmity. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- FAZAL HUSSAIN and another vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 4 others 2002 YLR 3262
- FAZAL HUSSAIN And Another vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM And Other K.L.R. 2002 Revenue Cases 156