Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and others vs Mst. RESHAM BIBI and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit concerning inheritance, which was dismissed by the trial court, with subsequent appeals also being dismissed by the appellate and High Court. The primary controversy involved the status of the respondent as the widow of the deceased. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the lower courts, alleging misreading and improper appreciation of evidence. During the proceedings, it was disclosed that some petitioners had reached an agreement with the respondents and no longer wished to pursue the petition, while others maintained their stance. Upon hearing arguments on the merits, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal, holding that the case did not warrant interference with the concurrent findings of fact. The Court affirmed that it would not disturb findings of fact reached by lower courts in the absence of a compelling demonstration of misreading or misappreciation of evidence, effectively disposing of the petition.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil suit regarding inheritance?
- Does the allegation of misreading of evidence provide sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact?
- What is the effect of a partial settlement among petitioners on a petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is by a plaintiffs side in a civil suit regarding inheritance, which was dismissed. Their first appeal was also dismissed. The regular second appeal filed before the High Court having met the same fate, the petitioners have now sought leave to appeal.
2. ' The counsel for the petitioners stated that the real controversy in the case is whether Mst. Resham Bibi, respondent No,1, was the widow of Talib Hussain or not. He further stated that although the learned Courts below have rendered concurrent findings of fact on the said issue against the petitioners, the same are liable to be set aside on ground of misreading and consequential wrong appreciation of evidence. He has advanced some supporting arguments in this behalf.
3. During the arguments. The learned counsel informed us that some of the petitioners have entered into an agreement with the respondents' side. He has also placed on record some documents regarding developments subsequent to the filing of the petition. It appears that some of the petitioners do not want to press this petition, but the same cannot be said about the others.
4. ' In the peculiar circumstances of the case, however, after hearing the learned counsel on merits, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal on the question of findings of fact.
5. ' This petition thus is disposed of accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.