FATEH MUHAMMAD and another vs FAZAL KARIM and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court in a dispute involving a Benami property purchase. The petitioners, who are brothers of the respondent, claimed that they jointly purchased the property with the respondent, contributing equal shares to the price, but that the sale deed was executed solely in the name of the respondent as a Benamidar. While the trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners, the first appellate court reversed this finding, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' civil revision. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their findings of fact regarding the Benami nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the concurrent findings of the appellate and High Court. Furthermore, the petitioners could not provide a satisfactory explanation for why the property was purchased exclusively in the name of one brother if all three had contributed to the price. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
- Does a failure to explain why a property was purchased in the name of only one party when multiple parties claim contribution undermine a claim of Benami purchase?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the first appellate court and the High Court in a civil revision?
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side in a civil suit regarding a Benami purchase, against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court.
2. ' The two petitioners are real brothers of respondent No,1. They claimed in the suit that all three of them jointly purchased the suit property from respondent No,2 by contributing equal shares of price but the name of respondent No,1 only was entered as vendee - Benamidar.
3. ' The learned trial Court decreed petitioners' suit. However, the learned first appellate Court reversed the findings of fact and set aside the judgment and decree. The petitioners then filed the Civil Revision in the High Court which having been dismissed, they have sought leave to appeal.
4. ' Learned counsel raised contentions with regard to the findings of fact reached by the two higher Courts.
5. After hearing him, we have not been able to find any infirmity in the impugned findings; nor, the learned counsel has been able to explain satisfactorily as to why the purchase was made only in the name of one brother (respondent No,1) if it had been made by all the three brothers. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.