NOOR KHAN vs Mst. ALAM KHATOON
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court, which had upheld an appellate decision setting aside a gift deed. The core legal question concerned whether the findings of fact regarding the validity of the gift, specifically the respondent's lack of independent advice and the failure of the petitioner to satisfy the burden of proof on the relevant issue, were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had carefully examined the respondent's version, found that she lacked independent advice, and rendered concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. The Court affirmed that there was no justification to interfere with these factual findings or to doubt the veracity of the respondent's testimony at the leave-to-appeal stage. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the principle that the Supreme Court will not typically disturb concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless they are perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift deed?
- Does the absence of independent advice for a donor invalidate a gift?
- Is a petitioner entitled to leave to appeal when lower courts have rendered consistent findings of fact against them?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition by a defendant, in a suit for declaration, is directed against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner's Civil Revision.
2. ' The suit by the respondent (sister of the petitioner) challenged a gift purported to have been made by her in petitioner's favour, was dismissed. Her appeal however, was allowed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the Court on Issue No,7 which related to the validity of the gift. The High Court upheld the appellate decision, therefore, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. ' Learned counsel has contended that the execution of the gift deed having been established the respondent had failed to establish that in fact the gift was not made.
4. The learned two Courts below having carefully examined the version of the respondent vis-a-vis the disputed gift and having also held that she had no independent advice, rendered findings of facts against the petitioner. Her version has been believed. No justification has been made out to set aside the findings of fact or to doubt the veracity of respondent at this stage. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
5. ' Leave to .