NIAZ KHAN and others vs KISHWAR SULTANA
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a decree in favor of the respondent. The respondent had filed a suit claiming inheritance rights as the daughter of the deceased, Cheragh Din, challenging a mutation sanctioned in 1957. The petitioners contested her relationship to the deceased, argued that the suit was barred by limitation, and asserted the doctrine of res judicata based on an alleged prior suit. The trial court initially dismissed the suit on limitation grounds, but the appellate court reversed this, and the High Court upheld the decision. The Supreme Court found that all lower courts had recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding the respondent's status as the daughter and heir of the deceased. Furthermore, the courts below correctly determined that the suit, filed by a co-owner, was within the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact were free from legal infirmity and that no substantial question of law of public importance was raised, consequently dismissing the petition.
- Can a suit filed by a co-owner regarding inheritance be dismissed on the grounds of limitation?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of a substantial question of law?
- Does the doctrine of res judicata apply when there is no evidence of a prior suit between the same parties for the same cause of action?
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against judgment, dated 5-12-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,781 of 1991.
2. Mst. Kishwar Sultana, the respondent No,1 filed a suit to call in question validity of Mutation No,127 of 1997 of inheritance sanctioned on 19-11-1957 on the ground that she was daughter of Cheragh Din deceased and his widow Mst. Wazir Begum, the petitioner No,4 and real sister of the other petitioners and was, therefore, entitled, to inherit the share of the property of her deceased father.
The petitioners denied their relationship with the respondent No, 1 . The suit of the respondent No,1 was dismissed by the Civil Court, Sheikhupura on 8-11-1987 on the issue of limitation. The appeal of the respondent No,1 was accepted on 7-4-1991 and the suit was decreed by the AdditiOnal District Judge. The Civil Revision No,781 of 1991 filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the impugned judgment of, the Lahore High Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the relationship of the respondent No,1 with Cheragh Din deceased had not been proved. Even in the absence of any cross objections the petitioners were entitled to question the legality of the findings of the Civil Court on other issues during the course of hearing of the appeal. The suit of the respondent No,1 was hit by the principles of res judicata as she had earlier filed a similar suit. It was lastly contended that the suit of the respondent No,1 was hopelessly time-barred.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. All the Courts recorded concurrent findings of fact that the respondent No,1 was real daughter of Cheragh Din deceased and was, therefore, entitled to inherit the property of her father. The Appellate Court as well as the High Court also recorded findings of fact that the suit of respondent No,1 being that of a co-owner of the land was within time. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent No,1 had filed any earlier suit against the petitioners for the same relief and cause of action between the same parties and that the same was dismissed on merits. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts do not suffer from any legal infirmity. No substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this case.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition for leave to appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.