MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN vs Mst. HUSSAINA BEGUM and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, which upheld the concurrent decrees in favour of the respondents granting them a share in their deceased father's inheritance as daughters. The petitioner's defense rested upon an alleged gift made solely in his favour by the father. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of concurrent findings of fact regarding the disputed gift and the scope of interference by the High Court in second appeal on questions of fact and appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings against the petitioner's claim of a gift suffered from no legal or other infirmities and were rightly maintained by the High Court. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift and appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless vitiated by a legal infirmity, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a gift can be set aside in a Regular Second Appeal?
- Are concurrent findings on the appreciation of evidence liable to interference in the absence of a legal infirmity?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant in a declaratory suit regarding inheritance, against the dismissal by the High Court of his Regular Second Appeal.
2. ' The respondents' suit for a share in the inheritance of parties' father, claiming as his daughters, has been decreed against the petitioner throughout. His plea was based on a gift said to have been made by the father in favour of the son (petitioner) only.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we agree with the learned Judge in the High Court that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the so-called gift claimed by the petitioner which go against him, were not liable to be set aside by the High Court. On the question of appreciation of evidence and facts, the impugned findings do not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.