Pakistan Case Law
1991 SCMR 1816

UMAR DIN vs GHAZANFAR ALI And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1991 SCMR 1816
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No.733 of 1985
Date1989-03-29
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan
Authored bySaad Saood Jan
Resultappeal refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding possession of a portion of an Ahata situated in Chak No.120/S.P., Tehsil Sargodha. The petitioner, claiming to be a transferee since 20-11-1947, obtained a decree from the trial court, which was subsequently reversed and dismissed on appeal by the District Judge, a decision upheld by the High Court in regular second appeal. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether an appellate judgment is improper if it omits separate findings on each individual issue, and whether the concurrent findings regarding the evacuee status and transfer of the property were legally flawed. The Supreme Court held that the appellate judgment was proper because, despite not discussing each issue separately, the appellate court had rendered findings on all points raised before it. On the merits, the court maintained the finding that the disputed land was evacuee property validly transferred to the respondent. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is an appellate court judgment improper merely because it does not record separate findings on each individual issue?
  • Whether an appellate judgment is valid if it addresses and decides all the points raised before the court without discussing each issue separately?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact establishing that property is evacuee property transferred by settlement authorities be disturbed without demonstrating legal infirmity?
suit for possessionevacuee propertyrehabilitation and settlementappellate judgmentissue-wise findingsregular second appealleave to appeal

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The dispute between the parties relates to a portion of an Ahata situate in Chak No.120/S.P. Tehsil Sargodha. The petitioner filed a suit for the possession of the disputed portion on the assertion that he was a transferee thereof since 20-11-1947. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal by the respondent it was dismissed by the District Judge. The petitioner filed a regular second appeal in the High Court but this too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the learned Additional District Judge while accepting the appeal of the respondents did not record separate findings on each issue and for that reason he had not delivered a proper judgment.

3. We have seen the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and find no merit in the contention. It is true that the learned District Judge has not discussed each issue separately but he has given his findings on all the points that were raised before him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment recorded by him is not a proper one.

4. On merits, there is a finding of the learned Additional District Judge which was affirmed by the High Court that the portion in dispute was evacuee property and was transferred by the Rehabilitation and Settlement authorities to the respondent. The learned counsel has not been able to show that this finding suffers from any infirmity. Leave is refused.

Cited by 16 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.