Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM ABBAS VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD AFZAL
1988 S C M R 1866
1988 S C M R 1866
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ
GHULAM ABBAS and 9 others‑‑Petitioners
versus
MUHAMMAD AFZAL and 7 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.243‑R of 1988, decided on 20th June, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16‑5‑1988 passed in R.S.A. No.50 of 1981).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑ Concurrent findings of fact‑‑interference with‑ Respondents' suit for possession through redemption of suit property on payment of mortgage debt‑‑Petitioners claiming that transaction was sale and not mortgage‑‑Suit decreed and decision upheld in Regular Second Appeal‑‑High Court having satisfactorily dealt with all material points and nothing found to justify interference with concurrent findings of fact, leave to appeal refused.
Ansar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ismail and others 1968 S C M R 302 ref.
Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jaffari, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20th June, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby petitioners' Regular Second Appeal in a property dispute case was dismissed.
Respondents side's suit for possession through redemption of the suit shop on payment of the mortgage debt, was decreed. The petitioners' plea was that transaction was of sale and not of mortgage, though in order to overcome certain difficulties due to the character of the property, it was given the colour of mortgage. It has been rejected by all the three Courts below.
Learned counsel contended that the tests laid down by this Court regarding determination of the character of the transaction stood satisfied in petitioners' favour‑‑reference was made to Ansar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ismail and others 1968 S C M R 302. He has also relied on various circumstances and material on record with a view to show that the transaction was sale.
Similar arguments were raised before the High Court. The case cited before us was also relied upon. But they did not find favour with the learned Judge in the High Court, who satisfactorily dealt with all substantial points. We also heard the learned counsel at some length to see if any principle has been violated in reaching the concurrent findings of fact, which go against the petitioner. But nothing has been found to justify interference by this Court‑‑not even the judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
M.I./G‑123/S Petition dismissed.