Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 1415 (1)

MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 1415 (1)
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,692 of 1984
Date1988-09-07
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Saad Saood Jan
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the defendant in a declaratory suit concerning the validity of a gift, challenging the High Court's dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal. The High Court had upheld the concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts, which determined that the gift in question was valid and genuine. Before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioner's counsel sought to challenge these concurrent findings of fact by presenting various arguments. The Supreme Court found no merit in these arguments and held that no justification was established to warrant an interference with the concurrent findings or to conduct a re-examination of the evidence. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the decisions of the courts below.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift in the absence of any justification to re-examine the evidence?
  • Can a petitioner successfully challenge concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal before the Supreme Court without showing exceptional circumstances?
declaratory suitgiftconcurrent findingssecond appealleave to appealre-examination of evidence

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The defendant in a declaratory suit relating to a gift, has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of his Regular Second Appeal--he had failed before the learned lower Court.

2. The learned Judge in the High Court has upheld the concurrent findings of the Courts below with regard to the validity and genuineness of gift which go against the petitioner. The learned counsel in respect of this petition has tried to assail the findings of fact by advancing various arguments none of which has impressed us. No justification has been made out for interference by this Court for re-examination of the evidence. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.