Mst. HANIFA BIBI vs MUNAWAR AHMAD and others
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a dispute over the existence of a staircase and a door connecting two property portions that originally formed a single unit. The core legal question concerned whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of the staircase and the associated right of easement could be interfered with by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge, based on spot inspection and concurrent findings, were well-founded and did not warrant any interference. The ratio laid down is that concurrent findings of fact on physical features such as the existence of a door and staircases, supported by spot inspection, will not be disturbed by the apex court in the absence of any legal infirmity or illegality. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a staircase and door can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does a party retain the right of easement over a staircase originally meant for both portions of a divided property when no waiver is mentioned in the sale deed?
ORDER
1. ' JAVED IQBAL,J.---The controversy revolves around the existence of a staircase/door between property bearing Nos. F-18/1 and F-18/II which used to be one unit which has been set at naught by the learned Single Judge in Chambers on 17-11-1999 vide .Judgment impugned, operative portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- "The learned trial Judge had recorded the statements of the parties and 'decided the matter after spot inspection. He found that the door of stair-case did exist but the same was found closed. The closing of the door gave cause of action to the petitioner for filing the suit. It is also to be noticed that there was no other stair-case leading to the roof of the portion now belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners also have the right of easement. Half portion of roof of the stair-case admittedly is on the side of the petitioner, therefore, under law and equity, the petitioners are entitled to use the same stair-case which was originally meant for both the portions at the property. There is no mention in the sale-deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondents that they have also given up the right to use the stair-case.
2. 2.The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in Chambers being well based does not warrant any interference. It may not be out of place to mention here that question of fact qua the existence of door has been decided by the learned Judge after having inspected the site duly concurred by the High Court hardly needs any further probe by this Court. Neither the concurrent findings of fact could be dislodged nor any illegality or infirmity meriting interference could be pointed out.
3. ' The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused.