MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others vs FAZAL KARIM and others
This matter originated as a civil suit for partition and separate possession of a property, filed by three brothers against their fourth brother, Mushtaq Ahmad. The plaintiffs claimed a three-fourths share in the house based on a joint Permanent Transfer Order and Permanent Transfer Deed issued in 1960 and 1963, respectively. The defendant contended that he was the exclusive owner of the property. The Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad, rejected the defendant's plea and passed a preliminary decree for partition, a decision subsequently upheld by the appellate court and the Peshawar High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the joint ownership and possession of the property were sustainable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the findings of fact regarding title and joint ownership were well-supported by evidence, including the payment of the property price from the compensation books of the plaintiffs. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact, absent any significant question of law, do not warrant interference in its revisional or appellate jurisdiction.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding joint ownership of property are subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can a plea of exclusive ownership be sustained when the property was transferred via a joint Permanent Transfer Order?
- Is the payment of property price from the compensation books of specific parties relevant to determining joint ownership?
1. ' NAIMUDDIN, J.--Mushtaq Ahmad, Fazal Karim, Fazal Azim and Abdul Karim are brothers inter se.
2. They were jointly transferred the house in question under P.T.O. No,457034 dated 3rd March, 1960 and the Permanent Transfer Deed issued in their joint names in 1963. Some of them have died and represented by their legal representatives.
3. ' Three brothers Fazal Karim, Fazal Azim and Abdul Karim filed a civil suit, being Civil Suit No,103/1 of 1976/78 for partition and separate possession of their 3/4th share in the house on the basis of joint ownership and possession. Mushtaq Ahmad who was the defendant in the suit now in this petition is represented by his legal representatives took the plea that he is exclusive owner of the property.
4. The plea was rejected by the Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad and a preliminary decree for possession of 3/4th share of the suit property by partition was passed by the judgment and decree dated 14th January, 1980.
5. The appeal and the revision application both failed. Now, the petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench Abbottabad, whereby the revision application filed by their predecessor in interest was dismissed. In our view the finding that the house was jointly owned and possessed is a finding of fact and has been confirmed in the appeal against which the revision was dismissed. Indeed, it is in evidence that even payment of the price of the house was paid from the compensation books of the three brothers, who filed the suit. The plea, of sole ownership was raised for the first time in suit filed by the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest after 16 years from the date of P.T.O. Which was issued in 1960 and in the Civil Suit No,3221 of 1977 which was for declaration of the title filed by Mushtaq Ahmad and was dismissed by the same Court on 14th January, 1988. The finding as to title being a finding of fact does not call for any interference by this Court and the counsel has not raised any question of law worth consideration. We, therefore, find no merits in this petition and accordingly dismiss it.