MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Mst. ZUNEERAN BIBI
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts decreeing the respondent sister's suit for possession and permanent injunction regarding her share in their father's inheritance. The petitioner had claimed exclusive ownership through an oral gift, which was rejected by the courts below. The core legal question revolved around the challenge to concurrent findings of fact and the technical objection regarding the improper placement of the burden of proof. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact suffered from no infirmity and that the technicality regarding the burden of proof was of no significance as the petitioner suffered no prejudice and failed to produce necessary evidence. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact will not be interfered with in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence, and technicalities concerning the burden of proof lose significance when no prejudice is shown.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does a technical defect regarding the improper placement of the burden of proof warrant interference when no prejudice has been suffered by the party?
- Can a party claim exclusive ownership of inheritance property based on an oral gift when concurrent findings of fact reject such a plea?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Petitioner/defendant in a suit for possession and permanent injunction, filed by his sister, has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision.
2. ' The petitioner wanted to deprive the respondent of her rightful share in their father's inheritance.
3. He claimed that he was the exclusive owner of the suit property as a donee under an oral gift made by the parties' father. The learned trial Judge decreed the respondent's suit. Her claim was accepted and petitioner's plea was rejected. The trial Court's verdict was upheld in appeal and revision filed by the petitioner.
4. ' The learned Judge in the High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact particularly when there was no noticeable misreading or non-reading of material evidence.
5. ' Learned counsel, in addition to the challenge on questions of fact, has also contended that the burden of relevant issue was wrongly placed on the petitioner.
6. We, after hearing him, are satisfied that the findings of fact do not suffer from any infirmity. The question regarding burden of the issue is also of no help to the petitioner. There is no complaint that he suffered any prejudice in this behalf and that on account of this so-called technical defect, he failed to produce the necessary evidence. Otherwise too, the technicality regarding burden of proof, in cases, like the present one, is of no significance at this stage. No justification having been made out for interference, leave to appeal is refused.