Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALLAH DITTA VS Respondent: MARAYAM
1988 S C M R 26
1988 S C M R 26
Present: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
ALLAH DITTA and others--Petitioners
versus
Mst. MARAYAM--Respondent
Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 303 and 304 of 1987, decided on 4th August, 1987.
(On appeals from the order/judgments dated 28-2-1987 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 24/D and 25/D of 1987/BWP).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--
---S. 115--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-.-Re-appraisal of evidence by Appellate Court--Decision affirmed in revision- Interference with--Appellate Court after re-appraisal of evidence, upsetting findings of Trial Court--Decision affirmed in revision- Findings of Appellate Court being fully justified by evidence on record, Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal.
Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 4th August, 1987.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- In these two petitions for special leave to appeal, the main question for consideration is whether the respondent has sold her share which she had inherited in the agricultural land left by her father, in favour of the petitioners who were her real brothers. The trial Court answered the question in the affirmative but on appeal the learned Additional District Judge reappraised the evidence and held that the sales were not established. The High Court upheld the findings of the learned Additional District Judge in revisional jurisdiction. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we are of the view that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge was fully justified by the evidence on the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the suits brought by the petitioners were barred by time. This contention has little merit as there is no reliable evidence of ouster of the respondent by the petitioners from the land in dispute. These petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed.
M.I./A-104/S Petitions dismissed.