MULAZIM HUSSAIN and 4 others vs NOOR MUHAMMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court regarding a dispute over inheritance and property shares between cousins whose fathers were brothers. The core legal question concerns whether interference by the Supreme Court is justified when concurrent findings of fact have been rendered against the petitioners by all lower courts regarding both the inheritance claim based on incurred expenditure and the alleged family settlement or partition. The Supreme Court held that the main controversy stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact, and no point of law justifying interference is involved. The ratio decidendi is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact on inheritance and property disputes where no substantial question of law or justification for leave to appeal is established.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a property and inheritance dispute?
- Can a regular second appeal be maintained against concurrent findings of fact regarding inheritance shares?
- Does an alleged family settlement or partition raise a question of law sufficient to justify leave to appeal when rejected by lower courts?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Father of the petitioners and Noor Muhammad respondent, are brothers inter se. Petitioners' case, that their father was entitled to suit property (more share) in inheritance than Noor Muhammad respondent on account of certain expenditure incurred by the former, has failed before all the Courts below. The findings of fact are against them. They have now challenged the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the High Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel, we feel that the main controversy between the parties stands concluded by findings of fact; which also apply to the alleged family settlement/partition.
' No such point is involved as would justify interference by this Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.