1989 PLP 1174 (CLC)
JAHANA and another‑‑Appellants‑ Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1174 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Amjad Khan, J |
| Parties | JAHANA and another‑‑Appellants‑ Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1174 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1174 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Amjad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1174 (CLC) (JAHANA and another‑‑Appellants‑ Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Yamin for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
1988. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.100‑‑Second appeal‑‑Concurrent findings‑‑Interference with‑ Concurrent findings of fact reached by two Courts below were justified on record and case stood concluded thereby‑‑No error of law having been pointed out, no justification for reconsideration of case, held, existed within limited scope of second appeal. Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmad PLD 1955 FC 38 and Pathana v . Mst. Wasai and another PLD 1965 SC 134 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmad PLD 1955 FC 38 and Pathana v . Mst. Wasai and another PLD 1965 SC 134 ref. Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Yamin for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1988. Appellants brought a suit for declaration to claim title in themselves with regard to a three‑Marla house situated in village Kathiala Sheikhan, Tehshil Phalia, District Gujrat on the basis of a gift in their favour claimed to have been made on 28‑11‑1968 by the owner Ghulam Ali. Defendants contested the suit which was set down to be tried on the following issues:‑ "(1) Whether Ghulam Ali deceased gifted away the suit house in favour of the plaintiffs? OPP. (2) If issue No.l is proved, whether the mutation in respect of the suit house attested in favour of the defendants is illegal and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP. (3) Relief."
2. Parties led their evidence wherein four witnesses were examined by the plaintiffs inclusive of the statement of one of them made as P.W.3 and the deed was produced as Exh.Pl. On the other hand defendants examined two witnesses and one of them made his own statement as D .W .3 to close the case by producing copy of the mutation in dispute as Exh.D.l along with that of the death entry of Ghulam Ali as Exh. D.2. Trial Court attended to the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the so‑called gift deed was prepared almost one month after the death of Ghulam Ali and considering the contradictions in the case came to the conclusion that Exh.P.l was a fake document. In consequence it dismissed the suit by means of judgment dated 6‑1‑1972.
3. Appeal of the plaintiffs came up before the learned District Judge who reconsidered the evidence and, affirming the Trial Court's finding that the so‑called gift deed was not a genuine document, he dismissed the appeal on 11‑6‑1973.
4. The concurrent findings of fact reached by the two Courts below are justified on the record and this case really stands concluded thereby. There is not pointed out any error of law to have been made in reaching those findings to bring the case within the scope of section 100 of the C.P.C. No. justification for reconsideration of this case exists within the limited scope of second appeal, as per the judgments reported as Abdul MaRd and others v. Khalil Ahmad PLD 1955 Federal Court 38 and Pathana v. Mst. Wasai and another PLD 1965 SC 143.
5. In result, this second appeal is dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs hereof. H. B. T./J‑39/L Appeal dismissed.