SAID MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts regarding a suit for the cancellation of a registered sale-deed. The petitioner's core contention was that the power of attorney, which served as the basis for the execution of the sale-deed, was a forgery. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the reliance placed by the trial court on the testimony of an attesting witness, Muhammad Hassan. The Supreme Court examined the petitioner's arguments regarding these findings of fact. Upon review, the Court determined that the findings of the lower courts did not suffer from any legal infirmity or error. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact established by the courts below. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court will not typically disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be legally infirm.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court, appellate court, and High Court?
- Is the testimony of an attesting witness sufficient to uphold the validity of a sale-deed executed through a power of attorney?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The plaintiff in a suit for cancellation of a registered sale-deed, has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court.
2. ' According to the learned counsel, the petitioner's plea was that the alleged power of attorney on the basis of which the questioned deed was executed, itself was a forgery.
3. ' The learned trial Judge decreed the suit. On appeal the case was remanded for framing additional issues. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit in the second round. The appeal Court and the High Court having upheld the findings of fact by the learned trial Court, the petitioner has now sought leave to appeal.
4. ' The learned counsel while challenging the findings of fact contended that the testimony of Muhammad Hassan, the attesting witness should not have been relied upon. After hearing him on this and other questions relating to the findings of fact, we feel that they do not suffer from any infirmity.
5. ' Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused.