1987 PLP 1851 (SCMR)
Mst. TAJ BIBI and another‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR and 6 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1851 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. TAJ BIBI and another‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR and 6 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1851 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1851 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1851 (SCMR) (Mst. TAJ BIBI and another‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR and 6 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tahir Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
- Khalid Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and S.A.M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dated 26‑12‑1984, passed in Civil Revision No.4 of 1984). ‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Exercise of‑‑Finding of fact by lower Courts‑‑Interference with‑‑Revision‑‑Scope‑‑Respondents' suit for possession of houses decreed on basis of oath‑‑Appellants appeal dismissed and decree maintained only in favour of one respondent or ground that appeal was not maintainable in favour oil minors‑‑Respondents' revision challenging judgment and decree passed by trial Court and affirmed in appeal, dismissed‑‑Appeal before Supreme Court‑‑Plea that two Courts below had ignored evidence and failed to decide that land underneath houses did not belong to respondents‑plaintiffs‑‑No issue having been framed or required to be framed on behalf of appellants with regard to their ownership o: land, no fault could be found with decisions of two Courts below‑‑High Court's finding that suit was decreed on basis of preponderance of evidence and there was no scope for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction with findings of fact recorded in suit, held unexceptionable appeal being devoid of merit, dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑ This appeal, by leave of this Court, arises out of a judgment of the learned High Court passed in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 2. The respondent No.1 filed a suit against the appellants for possession of the disputed houses in the Court of the Qazi, Turbat. In the written statement filed in the trial Court, it was pleaded by the appellants that the land underneath the disputed houses belonged to the father of appellant No.1 and she had been residing there alongwith her father for the last 10 years. The suit was decreed on the basis of oath taken by the plaintiffs‑respondents' attorney a: desired by the appellants themselves vide their application. The appellants filed appeal challenging the said judgment and decree before the Majlis‑e‑Shoora. The appeal was dismissed and the decree passed by trial Court was maintained only in favour of the respondent No.1 on the ground that the same was not maintainable in favour of the minors. The respondents thereupon filed a revision application in the High Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Majis‑e‑Shoora respectively. 3. In support of the appeal, it was mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the two Courts below had ignored the evidence and failed to decide that the land underneath the disputed houses did not belong to the respondents‑plaintiffs. The only issue framed in the suit was, whether the respondents plaintiffs had proved their case against the appellants. No issue whatsoever was framed or required to be framed at any stage on behalf of the appellants with regard to their ownership of the land underneath the disputed houses. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the decisions of the two Courts as well as the one sought to be impugned herein. The learned High Court has found that the suit was decreed on the basis of preponderance of evidence and there was no scope for interference, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, with findings of fact recorded in the suit. Such finding of the learned High Court are indeed unexceptionable. We, therefore,, find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. M.I. /T‑12/S Appeal dismissed.