ALLAH DAD and another vs Mst. RASHIDAN and others
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, which had affirmed the decree in favor of the respondents regarding inheritance and a gift of property belonging to the parties' father. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence, concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, and the proper placement of the burden of proof concerning the alleged gift. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact suffered from no legal infirmity and that the burden of proof was correctly placed given the nature of the dispute, noting that no prejudice was suffered by the parties. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court in the absence of a jurisdictional error or material irregularity.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding inheritance and gift can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Whether the burden of proof regarding a disputed gift was wrongly placed on the petitioners?
- Does an alleged misplacement of the burden of proof furnish justification for setting aside concurrent findings of fact where no prejudice is suffered?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The defendants in a declaratory suit regarding inheritance and a gift of the suit property which belonged to the father of the parties, have sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of their Regular Second Appeal.
2. The respondents (daughters)' suit claiming right in the property left by the parties' father, was decreed. The petitioners first and second appeal having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. ' The petitioners' plea to the effect that although the respondents were entitled to the inheritance of the parties' father, they had lost that right because their father had in his lifetime gifted the suit property to the petitioners.
4. ' The grounds now urged before this Court relate to the appreciation of evidence and findings of fact by the learned Courts below. After hearing the learned counsel, we have not been able to find any infirmity noticeable by this Court, in them.
5. ' Learned counsel also tried to show that the burden of issue in the factual field, was wrongly placed on the petitioners. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the particular issue, we do not agree that the burden was wrongly placed. It hardly furnishes any justification for setting aside the findings of fact by the learned trial Court which were rendered after a contest between the parties in which none suffered any prejudice.
6. ' There is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.