Pakistan Case Law
1987 SCMR 117

MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs DAULAT ALI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1987 SCMR 117
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 449 of 1978 Regular Second Appeal No. 431 of 1978
Date1986-10-15
Judge(s)S.A. Nusrat and Javid Iqbal
Authored byS.A. Nusrat
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a dispute over house property located in Boreywalla Town, District Vehari. The petitioners asserted ownership based on a Permanent Transfer Order, while the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale allegedly executed by the petitioners on 6 October 1969. Following a contested trial, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The petitioners' subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Multan. The petitioners then filed a Second Appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the High Court was justified in dismissing the Second Appeal because the matter was already concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that no question of law arose in the case to warrant interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will not interfere in a Second Appeal where the lower courts have reached concurrent findings of fact and no substantial question of law is presented for adjudication.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere in a Second Appeal where there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts?
  • Does a petition for leave to appeal lie when no question of law is raised?
specific performanceconcurrent findings of factsecond appealcontract of saleproperty disputepermanent transfer order

ORDER

S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The dispute relates to a house property situate in Boreywalla Town of District Vehari. The petitioners claimed ownership of the property by virtue of the Permanent Transfer Order issued in their favour. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale said to have been executed by the petitioners on 6-10-1969. The suit after contest was decreed in favour of the plaintiff /respondent. The petitioners preferred appeal against the such judgment and decree which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan. Thereafter, a Second Appeal was preferred by the petitioners in the High Court which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.

2. We have gone through the record of the case. The learned Judge in the High Court was indeed justified in dismissing the Second Appeal on the ground that the matter stood concluded by concurrent findings of fact. No question of law arises in the case. The petition is dismissed.

Cited by 1 case

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