Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FEROZE VS Respondent: INAYAT HUSSAIN
1988 S C M R 491
1988 S C M R 491
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
FEROZE and another--Petitioners
versus
INAYAT HUSSAIN and another--Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.657 of 1987, decided on 11th January, 1988.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 12th August 1987 in Civil Revision No.686 of 1987).
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--
---S.42--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115--Suit for declaration--Petitioners' suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of suit land having been dismissed by Trial Court, appeal and revision also dismissed--Argument of petitioners' counsel that evidence on facts had not been properly appraised by Courts below found to be without any force as the civil revision was dismissed because no material irregularity had been pointed out in concurrent findings of Courts below--Findings of fact having been established against the petitioners and no point of law having been raised, petition for leave to appeal, held, was without any substance.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 11th January, 1988.
ORDER
JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Feroze and Bashir petitioners and is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 12th August, 1987 passed in Civil Revision No.686 of 1987.
Briefly the facts are that the petitioners instituted a declaratory suit against Inayat Hussain respondent to the effect that they were owners in possession of the suit land being heirs of their real brother Muhammad Sharif the last male holder. They challenged the inheritance mutation of the said land sanctioned in favour of Inayat Hussain respondent by the Revenue authorities considering him as the son of said Muhammad Sharif. One of the main issues framed by the Civil Judge was as to whether Inayat Hussain respondent was not the son of Muhammad Sharif deceased. This issue was decided against the petitioners by the trial Court holding that Inayat Hussain respondent was the son of Muhammad Sharif deceased and, therefore, entitled to inherit his property. Thus, vide judgment dated 27th June, 1984 the suit of the petitioners was dismissed. The aforesaid judgment and decree were challenged by way of an appeal which was likewise dismissed by the learned District Judge Sialkot on 26th February, 1987. Thereafter both the judgments of the Courts below were challenged before the Lahore High Court, Lahore by way of a civil revision which was also dismissed. Hence the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that the evidence on facts has not been properly appraised by the Courts below. But this argument is without any force as the civil revision was dismissed in this case because learned counsel before the High Court was unable to point out any material irregularity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Since the findings of fact have been established as against the petitioners, and no point of law has been raised, we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
S. Q. /F-35/S Petition dismissed.