ABDUL GHANI through L.Rs, and 5 others vs KHALID and 17 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court. The core legal question concerned two questions of fact: whether Dost Muhammad Khan had executed a power of attorney in favour of Abdul Hameed, and whether he had sold land to Munawar Khan during the pendency of the suit. The lower courts concurrently held both questions in the negative, finding that Dost Muhammad was mentally infirm and incapable of entering into such transactions. The Supreme Court held that no case was made out for interference with the concurrent findings of fact by the subordinate courts. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will not be disturbed in the absence of a compelling legal basis.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts regarding the execution of a power of attorney?
- Does the revisional jurisdiction permit interference with concurrent factual determinations concerning a person's mental capacity?
- What is the standard for granting leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact relating to property transactions?
ORDER
1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---Two questions of fact need consideration before us. These questions are:
(1) If Dost Muhammad Khan had executed a power of attorney in favour of Abdul Hameed; and,
(2) Whether Dost Muhammad had during the pendency of the suit sold the land to Munawar Khan, brother of the aforementioned Abdul Hameed.
2. The trial Court and the first appellate Court after appraising the evidence on the record concurrently decided both the questions in the negative, holding that Dost Muhammad was an old man, mentally infirm and mentally not in a position to enter into the transactions in question. The High Court in the revisional jurisdiction did not find any basis for interfering with the concurrent fmdings of the subordinate Courts. We are not persuaded that any case for interference with the said findings by this Court has been made out. Leave to appeal is refused. e