GHULAM HUSSAIN vs ALLAH BAKHSH and another
The matter arises from a civil suit filed by respondent No. 1 seeking a declaration of ownership and possession over a specific piece of land, asserting he supplied funds for its purchase, which was contested by the petitioner. The core legal question concerned whether the respondent had made financial contributions towards the disputed property's purchase. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of respondent No. 1, and the concurrent findings were subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal and the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts suffered from no infirmity. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when such findings are free from legal infirmity.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact on the contribution of funds for property purchase?
- Do concurrent findings of lower courts regarding a question of fact warrant leave to appeal when free from infirmity?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, Actg. C.J.---Allah Bakhsh, respondent No, 1, filed a suit seeking inter alia a declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of about 6 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land situate in Village Bahadar Garh of Tehsil Dera Ghazi Khan and that his brother Muhammad Bakhsh and his nephews, Gulzar and Ghulam Hussain had no concern with the said piece of land. His case was that he and the aforesaid persons had jointly purchased 14 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land and that he supplied funds for the purchase of 6 Kanals and 2 Marlas. The suit-was resisted only by the petitioner who denied that respondent No, 1 had made any contribution towards the purchase of the said land.
2. After considering the evidence of the parties the learned trial Court decreed the suit of respondent- No,
1. The petitioner's appeal before the Additional District Judge and revision petition before the High Court failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The question whether respondent No, 1 had made any contribution when purchasing the property in dispute was one of fact. The concurrent findings of the Courts below on this question do not suffer from any infirmity. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.