Pakistan Case Law
1987 SCMR 1550

Mst. RABIA BIB I vs GHULAM QADIR And Another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1987 SCMR 1550
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 742 of 1980 R.S.A. No. 823 of
Date1987-06-16
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan
Authored bySaad Saood Jan
ResultPetition dismissed
Summary

The petitioner instituted a civil suit seeking to set aside a sale transaction on the allegations of it being fictitious and fraudulent. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, but the first appellate court, the Additional District Judge, reversed this decision and dismissed the suit. Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal after re-examining the evidence and affirming the findings of the lower appellate court. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the concurrent findings of fact. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent factual findings of the courts below regarding the validity of the sale warranted interference in second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal or factual infirmity in the judgments of the High Court and the Additional District Judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact affirmed in second appeal will not be disturbed by the apex court unless shown to suffer from material defect or legal infirmity.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate court and the High Court can be interfered with when no legal infirmity is shown?
  • Can a sale transaction be avoided on the ground of being fictitious and tainted with fraud without establishing the same through sufficient evidence?
second appealfictitious salefraudulent saleconcurrent findingscivil suitpetition for leave to appeal

ORDER

1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner brought a suit to avoid a sale on the ground that it was fictitious and also tainted with fraud. The trial Court decreed her suit but on appeal it was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The petitioner preferred a second appeal in the High Court. A learned Single Judge re-examined the evidence, affirmed the findings of the Additional District Judge and dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that the findings of the High Court or the Additional District Judge suffer from any infirmity. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.