ALLAH YAR and another vs Mst. KHAN BIBI and 42 others
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' civil revision challenging concurrent findings of the lower courts. The dispute concerned the inheritance rights of the petitioners, who claimed to be collaterals of the deceased, Noor Muhammad. The trial court had dismissed the suit, finding that the petitioners were related to the deceased at too remote a degree to inherit. This decision was upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal and subsequently by the High Court in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to challenge these findings. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit because the arguments raised pertained exclusively to questions of fact that had already been concurrently decided against the petitioners by the lower courts. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact are not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction unless a significant question of law is demonstrated. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, maintaining the finality of the lower courts' factual determinations.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Is a finding regarding the degree of relationship for inheritance purposes considered a question of fact?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction?
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 2-6-1987 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby, Civil Revision No, 376/85 of the petitioners from the appellate order of the Addl. District Judge, Multan dated 20-12-1984 and that of the Civil Judge, Multan dated 25-11-1980, was dismissed.
2. ' The dispute between the parties relates to the inheritance of Noor Muhammad deceased. The plaintiffs/petitioners had brought a suit for establishing their rights on the alleged claim of being collaterals of the deceased. The suit was contested by the defendants/respondents and various issues were framed by the trial Court. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs/petitioners are not entitled to inherit the property of the deceased as they are related to him at a remote degree and vide his judgment dated 25-11-1980, dismissed the plaint. Appeal of the plaintiffs/petitioners before the Addl. District Judge was dismissed on 20-12- 1984. Revision petition of the petitioners was also dismissed by the High Court, vide judgment dated 2-6-1987.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusal of the record, we have come to the conclusion that this petition has no merit which deserves dismissal forthwith. The contentions raised before us by the learned counsel are relating to the question of facts which have been concluded by the concurrent findings of fact by the learned lower Courts against the petitioners.
4. The learned High Court has also rightly held that the findings of fact against the petitioners were not of such a nature which could be interfered in rcvisional jurisdition. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, failed to bring to our notice violation of any question of law in the concurrent findings of the Courts below which could make out the case of the petitioners liable for examination of this Court. Under the circumstances, we dismiss the petition and refuse leave to appeal.