Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 541 2014 SLD 541 2014 MLD 1025
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 457-P of 2012, decision & hearing Dated: 02-05-2013.
SHAH, JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, JUSTICE
Nek Nawaz Khan Awan for Petitioners. Mazullah Barkandi for
Respondents.

MST. HUSSAN HAWA AND 8 OTHERS

VS

SHER AMAN AND 8 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Concurrent findings of fact by courts below---Interference in such findings by High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Such interference neither permissible nor warranted by law---High Court in order to justify such interference would attend to reasons recorded by courts below in support of such findings and discover in their reasoning mis-reading, non-reading or perverse appreciation of evidence. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, JUSTICE:- --.--- This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 3-4-2008 and the same was maintained and upheld by the learned Appellate Court below vide judgment and decree dated 18-2-2012. 2. Short and essential facts of the case are that Sher Aman and others respondents/plaintiffs have brought a suit against Mst.Hussan Hawa petitioners/defendants, claiming declaration to the effect that the suit property measuring 98 Kanal 7 Marla comprising of Khasra Nos.153 to 155, Khata No. 2318/5209 to 5212 as per Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 is shamilat of Kandi Boki Khel and they are owners in possession of it and the petitioners/defendants have got no right whatsoever in the same and that gift Mutation No. 13040 attested on 22-9-1988 in favour of Mst.Hawa petitioner/defendant No. 1 by her deceased husband Mehraban Shah now dead (defendant No. 2 in the plaint) is based on fraud, wrong, illegal, ineffective upon the rights of the respondents/plaintiffs and the entries on the basis of the said Mutation needs to be corrected and is liable to be cancelled. In the alternate they also prayed for possession of the suit property. 3. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants by filing their written statements and the pleadings of the parties gave birth to the following issues:--- (1) Whether the plaintiffs have got a cause of action? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to sue? (3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (4) Whether the suit incompetent in its present form?…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492