Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 288(2)

MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 288(2)
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 833 of 1982
Date1988-08-07
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Dr. Javed Iqbal
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner, a defendant in a civil suit concerning an alleged gift made by his father, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. The core legal question involved whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of the gift made by the respondent in favor of the petitioner could be interfered with. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether the gift was made stood concluded by concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court had rightly dismissed the civil revision. The Supreme Court established the principle that findings of fact affirmed concurrently by lower courts will not be disturbed in civil revision or leave to appeal proceedings.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the making of a gift be challenged in a civil revision?
  • Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact affirmed by the High Court?
civil revisionleave to appealconcurrent findings of factgiftSupreme Court of Pakistan

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Petitioner, a defendant in a suit regarding an alleged gift made by his father (plaintiff/respondent herein), has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court.

2. ' The respondent had challenged the gift in dispute claimed to have been made by him in favour of the petitioner through a civil suit which was decreed. Petitioner's appeal and civil revision were dismissed.

3. The question whether or not the gift was, in fact, made by the respondent stands now decided and concluded by concurrent findings of all the learned I Courts below.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to re-agitate the questions examined by the High Court regarding findings of fact. After hearing him, we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly dismissed the petitioner's civil revision.

5. ' Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.

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