Mst. BASSO vs ANWAR ALI
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Reference, which had reversed a decision by a learned Single Judge regarding the transfer of property. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner possessed a preferential right over the respondent concerning the disputed transfer, and whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the parties' legal entitlements and factual claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had thoroughly examined the factual position and the respective legal rights of the parties before upholding the transfer in favour of the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning was sound and that no grounds existed to justify interference with the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to establish any superior claim or preferential right. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused and dismissed, maintaining the status quo established by the High Court.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that has thoroughly examined the factual position and legal rights of the parties?
- Can a petitioner succeed in an appeal against a property transfer without establishing a preferential right over the respondent?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Mst. Basso widow of Farid, resident of House No,11/302, Mohalla Janjua Street, Lalamusa, District Gujrat seeks leave to appeal against the jugment of Lahore High Court dated 26-10-1980 in L.P.A No, 225 of 1967 and Civil Reference 2/C-77.
2. ' The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court after taking into consideration the legal and factual position upset the decision of learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal upholding the transfer made in favour of Anwar respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to establish that the petitioner had a preferential right over the respondent but he was unable to do so in view of the reasons given in the impugned judgment of the High Court. We find the High Court thoroughly examined the question of entitlement, legal rights of the parties, the factual position and then restored the transfer in favour of the respondent. The judgment of the High Court calls for no interference. Leave is refused and the petition dismissed.