MUKHTAR and another vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias ABDULLAH
This civil petition arose out of a suit challenging inheritance claims. The legal representatives of the deceased's sister challenged the claim of the respondent, who asserted he was the son and sole heir of the deceased. The trial court initially decreed the suit upon finding that the deceased had died issueless. However, this finding of fact was reversed on first appeal, which determined that the respondent was indeed the son of the deceased. The High Court subsequently upheld the first appellate court's judgment in its civil revisional jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that discrepancies in the appraisal of evidence warranted setting aside the findings of the two higher courts. The Supreme Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the appellate court and the High Court. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on minor discrepancies in the appraisal of evidence?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against a High Court revisional judgment upholding a first appellate court's finding of fact on inheritance?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by Legal Representatives of a plaintiff, against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. It had arisen out of a case of inheritance.
2. ' Respondent Muhammad Ashraf alias Abdullah claiming to be the son of Allah Ditta deceased claimed inheritance as his sole heir. Mst. Rabia Bibi sister of the deceased and the mother of the petitioners filed a suit challenging the claim of the respondent. It was held that Allah Ditta had died issueless and accordingly the suit was decreed. This finding of fact was reversed in appeal filed by the respondent and the appellate judgment having been upheld by the High Court in its Civil Revisional jurisdiction, leave to appeal has now been sought.
3. Learned counsel has pointed out certain discrepancies and other similar aspects relating to the appraisal of evidence so as to contend that the findings of fact by the two learned higher Courts merited to be set aside.
4. ' After hearing him, we have not been able to find out any justification for setting aside the concurrent findings of two higher Courts. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.