Mst. INAYAT BEGUM and another vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court in a civil suit involving the sale of property. The core dispute arose from a transaction where property belonging to Mst. Alam Bibi was sold by her General Attorney, Madad Ali (petitioner No. 2), to his own wife, Mst. Inayat Begum (petitioner No. 1). The respondents challenged the transaction, alleging it was fraudulent. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, and the petitioners' subsequent first and second appeals were dismissed by the lower courts. The Supreme Court addressed whether there were grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the three lower courts. The Court held that the lower courts had properly dealt with the issues raised and that no justification existed for interference with the concurrent findings of fact. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions regarding the fraudulent nature of the property transaction.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts where no justification is shown?
- Is a property transaction valid when executed by a general attorney in favor of his own wife?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by defendants side in a suit regarding sale of property against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the High Court.
2. ' The respondents side had filed a ..Suit regarding sale of property belonging to Mst. Alam Bibi, by Madad All petitioner No, 2 in the capacity of her General Attorney in favour of his own wife, Mst.
3. Inayat begum petitioner No,1. It was alleged to be a fraudulent transaction. The suit was decreed.
4. The petitioners' first and second appeals having failed they have now sought leave to appeal.
5. Learned -counsel has reiterated the points raised before the High Court. They have properly been dealt with. All the three Courts have rendered findings of fact against the petitioners.
6. ' No justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.