Malik KHALIL AHMAD vs Malik HABIB AHMAD and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal against a decree for partition granted in favor of his siblings. The petitioner contended that he was the exclusive owner of the disputed house, thereby negating any share for the respondents. The trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court had all concurrently examined the matter and ruled against the petitioner. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought to challenge these findings. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, holding that it would not re-appraise evidence where there was no significant proposition of law to be examined, nor any instance of misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court in the absence of legal error or material misappraisal of evidence.
- Will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a second appeal where there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts?
- Can a petitioner challenge concurrent findings of fact regarding property ownership in the Supreme Court without a substantial question of law?
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 26-4-1988 whereby his second appeal against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated 6-11-1987 was dismissed. The petitioner has been unsuccessful throughout.
2. He deserved it. He is fighting against his own real brothers and sisters. Malik Habib Ahmad, respondent before us, had filed a suit for partition in the Court of Civil Judge, Lahore which was decreed. Appeal by the petitioner was dismissed and so was the case with the second appeal.
3. ' The case of the petitioner is that he is the exclusive owner of the house and not his father and hence the respondent had no share in the property.
4. This matter was thoroughly examined by the trial Court, by the first appellate Court and finally by the High Court. Therefore, we are not prepared to re-appraise the evidence, especially when there is no proposition of law to be examined nor it is a case either of misreading of evidence or non- reading of evidence. The petition is dismissed.