Mst. HAMIDA BIBI vs FATEH MUHAMMAD and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of her civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the decree against a gift made in her favour by their predecessor-in-interest. The core legal question raised was the application of the doctrine of 'Musha' to the disputed gift. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that leave to appeal cannot be granted merely to examine the doctrine of 'Musha' when the lower courts concurrently found that the making of a genuine gift was otherwise not established. The Court concluded that since the factual finding regarding the non-establishment of the genuine gift was unexceptionable, granting leave would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revision.
- Will leave to appeal be granted to examine the doctrine of Musha when the genuineness of the gift has not been established as a matter of fact?
- Can a civil revision be dismissed on the basis of unexceptionable concurrent findings regarding the validity of a gift?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant against the dismissal of her Civil Revision, by the High Court.
2. The respondents had challenged a gift made by their predecessor-ininterest in favour of the petitioner. Their suit was decreed. The petitioner's appeal and Civil Revision were dismissed.
3. Learned counsel relying on various judgments of the superior Courts, contended that the application of doctrine of `Musha' did need examination in this case and thus leave to appeal should be granted.
4. ' After hearing him, we are of the view that if the said question alone had been the deciding factor, it might have been a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. But it can be clearly understood from the High Court's judgment that making of the genuine gift in favour of the petitioner was otherwise not established and the findings in this behalf being unexceptionable, no useful purpose would be served by granting leave to appeal on the question of 'Musha'. The same, therefore, is refused.