Hafiz NAZIR AHMED vs Hafiz KALEEM ULLAH
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts in a property dispute between two brothers. The core legal question concerned whether land purchased in the name of the elder brother with contributions from both siblings and pursuant to familial arrangement constituted joint ownership, and whether concurrent factual determinations regarding such ownership warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that where lower courts have concurrently evaluated evidence and determined questions of fact establishing joint contribution and subsequent arbitration against the petitioner, no interference is warranted. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact by lower courts based on proper appreciation of evidence unless a material illegality or misreading of evidence is demonstrated.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding joint ownership of property can be disturbed in civil revision or leave to appeal?
- Does land purchased in the name of one brother through contributions of both brothers create a valid claim for a share by the other brother?
- Can a party refuse to abide by the decision of arbitrators when an agreement to be bound by such decision was duly executed?
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 21-12-1999 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby Civil Revision No,22- 0 of 1998 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The dispute in this case relates to two real brothers who purchased-32 Kanals of land situated in Chak No,189/9-L, Tehsil and District, Sahiwal, in the, year 1968 for a consideration of Rs,4,000. The property under dispute was purchased in the name of the petitioner, who is the 'elder brother.
When the respondent claimed his share, the petitioner objected to it and the matter was referred to the respectables of the locality who decided the same in favour of the respondent. The petitioner however did not implement the decision of the arbitration, whereupon the respondent was 'constrained to file a declaratory suit on 11-12-1991. Issues were framed, the parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 28-2-1994 decreed the suit. An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the above judgment, which was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, through his judgment dated 25-11-1997. Civil revision filed by the petitioner in the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench also met the same fate as it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge through his judgment dated 21-12-1999, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel and have gone through the entire documents annexed with this petition. Admittedly, both the brothers are residing in the same house though having separate kitchens. It has been brought on record through convincing evidence that the disputed property was purchased through contribution by both the brothers and the same was purchased in the name of the petitioner (the elder brother) at the suggestion of their \father. It is also reflected from the documents that the petitioner in spite of executing an agreement that an oath would be taken qua the payment of sale price and the entitlement of the respondent, did not honour the same. The petitioner did not comply with the aforesaid agreement and according to the terms of the same, the arbitrators accepted the claim of the respondent. A question of fact has been determined by the two Courts below i.e, the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge after evaluating the entire evidence brought on record, which finding has been maintained by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any warranting interference in the impugned judgment.
' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and .