1989 PLP 795 (SCMR)
FATEH MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus FAZAL KARIM and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 795 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah arid Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus FAZAL KARIM and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 795 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 795 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah arid Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 795 (SCMR) (FATEH MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus FAZAL KARIM and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th July, 1988.
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 11-2-1981 in Civil Revision No.159/D of 1981).
Art.185(3)--Petitioners and contesting respondent, real brothers--Petitioners' case was that they and respondent jointly purchased suit property by contributing equal shares of price but name of their respondent-brother was entered as vendee benamidar--Trial Court decreed suit but such finding was reversed by First Appellate Court, which finding was also upheld by High Court in revision--High Court's finding impugned--No infirmity existed in impugned findings nor petitioner had been able to explain satisfactorily, as to why purchase was made only in the name of one brother, viz. respondent if purchase had been made by all of them--Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th July, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side in a civil suit regarding a Benami purchase, against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. The two petitioners are real brothers of respondent No.l. They claimed in the suit that all three of them jointly purchased the suit property from respondent No.2 by contributing equal shares of price but the name of respondent No.l only was entered as vendee ‑ Benamidar. The learned trial Court decreed petitioners' suit. However, the learned first appellate Court reversed the findings of fact and set aside the judgment and decree. The petitioners then filed the Civil Revision in the High Court which having been dismissed, they have sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel raised contentions with regard to the findings of fact reached by the two higher Courts. After hearing him, we have not been able to find any infirmity in the i impugned findings; nor, the learned counsel has been able to explain satisfactorily as to why the purchase was made only in the name of one brother (respondent No. l) if it had been made by all the three brothers. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. A.A./F‑92/S Leave to appeal refused.