Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 517 1989 SLD 517 1989 SCMR 338 1989 SLD 1073 1989 SCMR 338
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 844 of 1982, decision dated: 7-08-1988
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND, JAVID IQBAL, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

QAMAR DIN

VS

UMAR DIN and others

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--S. 115--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal; grant of-­Misreading of evidence--Reappraisal of evidence at revisional stage--Revisional jurisdiction--Scope of--Suit for declaration and injunction--Decree set aside by High Court in revision--Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions (1) that High Court itself misread evidence in the case when it held, that there had been, misreading of evidence in 5 instances and therefore reappraisal of evidence in the case was necessary; (ii) that no objection having been taken respecting the mode of proof of Exhibit which was an agreement between father and son and on which total claim of petitioner was based, it was not open at revisional stage to hold that document was not properly proved; and (iii) that petitioner himself being landless m village, could only purchase disputed shop in the name of his father because he could not purchase said property in his own name. Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988. ORDER JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench dated 6th October 1982 whereby the civil revision filed by the respondents was accepted and suit of the petitioner was dismissed with costs throughout. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner is real brother of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Muhammad Isa was their father and predecessor-in-interest of both the parties. The petitioner acquired the shop in dispute in the said village and as he was not owner of any land in the said village, he got the shop Ihata in the name of his father Muhammad Isa who was a right holder. This Muhammad Isa died and thereafter the 'respondents claimed share from the petitioner in the shop in question on the ground that he had obtained it Benami i.e. in the name of their father. On this the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the real owner of the shop in dispute and that the other heirs of Muhammad Isa were not entitled to any share in the same. He also…
🔒
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