Mst. SATTAN and others vs Mst. RANI and others
These two petitions for leave to appeal arose from separate judgments of the Lahore High Court and involved similar questions regarding concurrent findings of fact on the religious denomination (Shia or Sunni) of deceased persons in succession matters. In the first matter, the plaintiffs unsuccessfully claimed the deceased was a Shia through revenue and civil proceedings, culminating in a dismissed civil revision. In the second matter, the plaintiffs successfully obtained a decree declaring the deceased a Shia, which was upheld in appeal and revision. The core legal question was whether the High Court should have interfered with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts suffered from no legal or other infirmity, and the revenue authorities' proceedings and alleged admissions did not warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless tainted by legal infirmity or misreading.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction?
- Can revenue mutation proceedings and alleged admissions warrant interference with concurrent factual findings by lower courts?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Thcse two different petitions arising out of separate judgments of Lahore High Court involve similar question. They are being disposed of together.
2. ' In C.P. 678 the petitioners-plaintiffs' plea that Khuda Bakhsh (deceased) was a Shia by faith, having failed before the revenue authorities in the mutation proceedings, their suit was also dismissed. Their Civil Revision having been dismissed by the High Court, leave to appeal has now been sought by the petitioners on the main plea that Khuda Bakhsh was a Shia by faith.
3. ' In C.P. 685 which. Has been filed by the defendant's side, the question of fact involved is reverse to the one noted above. According to the respondents-plaintiffs side Khushi Muhammad (deceased in this case) was a Shia, while the petitioners' plea was that he was a Sunni. The decision of the revenue authorities not having been considered as conclusive, the respondent's suit was decreed on the finding that Khushi Muhammad was a Shia. The appellate Court dismissed the petitioners' appeal. Their revision having also been dismissed by the High Court, they have now sought leave to appeal on the main plea that Khushi Muhammad (deceased) was a Sunni.
4. ' The main feature in both the cases is whether the High Cout, in the circumstances thereof, should have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower Courts in its .Revisional jurisdiction.
5. ' After hearing the learned counsel appearing for respective petitioners in both the cases, we have not been able to find any justification for interference with the impugned judgments. They do not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise.
6. The plea in the first case that Mst. Rani respondent therein, had made certain admissions before the revenue authorities, and, similar plea in the second case that Muhammad Ishaquc attorney of the respondents side, had made an admission before the revenue authorities having also been considered, we have not been persuaded to change the aforestated view that the findings of fact in these two cases reached by the learned two Courts below, were not such so as tort attract revisional jurisdiction of the High Court for interference therewith. Accordingly, finding no force in these two petitions, leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 4 cases
- Mrs. RASHIDA ASIF vs Mrs. AASIA GONDAL and others 2010 SCMR 450
- Mrs. RASHIDA ASIF Versus Mrs. AASIA GONDAL 2010 PLC(CS) 357
- SULEMAN ALI HAIDERI Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN 2004 SCMR 354
- BABER GUL Versus SOHAIL AHMAD SHEIKH 2002 PLC(CS) 160