1990 PLP 1015 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIO and another‑‑Ptitioners Versus ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1015 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid, Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakunil Salam, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIO and another‑‑Ptitioners Versus ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1015 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1015 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid, Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakunil Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1015 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIO and another‑‑Ptitioners Versus ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jari Ullah Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and lqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th January, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 5‑4‑1986 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 818‑D of 1986). ‑‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Concurrent finding of fact by three Courts below‑-‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Trial Court on the basis of evidence on record had come to conclusion that petitioner had encroached on an area of the house transferred to respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest‑‑‑Finding was upheld in appeal on re appraisal of evidence‑‑‑Such finding having not been shown to be suffering from any misreading of evidence was not displaced in revision, by High Court‑‑ Concurrent finding of fact by three Courts below called for no interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑No point of law was involved‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Jari Ullah Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and lqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th January, 1990. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑Respondents are heirs of Muhammad Raman who was transferred a House No. P‑521, situate in Toba Tek Singh. Adjacent property No. 522/2, was transferred to one ‑ Fateh Muhammad who sold it to Abdul Ghani and the later in his turn sold it to the petitioners. The respondents filed a civil suit saying that the petitioners had encroached an area measuring 2‑1/2 Marlas of the House No. P‑521 transferred to their predecessor, Muhammad Ramzan and for recovery of the said area. It was resisted by the petitioners. On the basis of the evidence on the record, the learned Civil .fudge, Toba Tek Singh came to the conclusion that the claim of the respondent was correct and he decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 9‑3‑1985. On petitioners' appeal. the evidence was re‑appraised by the learned Additional District .judge, Toba Tek Singh, who upheld the finding of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 8‑3‑1986. The petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 818‑D of 1986 which has been dismissed in limine by a learned single Judge vide order dated 5‑4‑1986.
2. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the aforesaid orders.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the transfer price of the house transferred to the petitioners' predecessor‑in -interest and the one transferred to Muhammad Ramzan whose successors‑in- interest are respondents was the same, therefore, the area of the houses transferred to the two transferees should have been found to be equal. The finding to the contrary by the three Courts below is erroneous.
4. Contention is devoid of force. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record had come to the conclusion that the petitioners had encroached on an area of 2‑1/2 Marlas of the house transferred to the respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest. The evidence was re‑appraised on appeal and the finding was upheld. The finding was not shown to be suffering from any misreading of evidence, therefore, it was not displaced in revision by the learned single Judge. Concurrent finding of fact by the three Courts calls for no interference. No point of law is involved. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. AA./M‑1231/S Petition dismissed