1994 PLP 2276 (SCMR)
NOUROZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZULEKHA through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2276 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mir Hazar Khan Khoso and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ |
| Parties | NOUROZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZULEKHA through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2276 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 2276 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mir Hazar Khan Khoso and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2276 (SCMR) (NOUROZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZULEKHA through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th August, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of High Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 17‑4‑1994 passed in Civil Revision No. 112/1993). ‑‑‑‑S.42‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Suit for declaration and permanent injunction relating to house in question, was dismissed by all the Courts below including the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑All the three Courts below had concurrently found that petitioner (plaintiff) was not the owner of property in question through purchase‑‑‑Findings arrived at by Courts below did not suffer from misreading/non‑reading of evidence‑‑‑Courts below could believe or disbelieve evidence‑‑‑Courts below having applied conscious mind to the relevant evidence and having given sound and cogent reasons in support of their decisions, there were no compelling reasons to interfere with the impugned judgments/decrees‑‑‑No case was made out for interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th August, 1994. MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J‑‑‑This petition is directed against the order of High Court of Sindh dated 17‑4‑1994. The facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Mst. Zulekha (the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents) in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Karachi. It was averred in the plaint that he had purchased the disputed house from Mst. Zulekha (defendant) for Rs.19,000 vide sale‑deed dated 23‑2‑1970 and ever since the purchase is in continuous possession of the same but on 17‑1‑1985 the defendant tried to take over the possession of the house by force. The suit was resisted. The issues were framed. The parties produced their evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 20‑5‑1990. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Karachi (West) on 18‑2‑1993. Feeling still aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi which was also dismissed on 17‑4‑1994.
2. The petitioner has appeared in person. He raised the following points before us:‑‑ (1) That the evidence produced by him has wrongly been disbelieved. (2) That the evidence on record will show that having purchased the disputed house from the defendant for consideration, he was owner of the same and entitled to the decree prayed for. (3) That the sale‑deed dated 23‑2‑1970 bears the genuine thumb‑impression of Mst. Zulekha (defendant) the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents.
3. The petitioner is not represented by counsel. We have carefully considered the matter. The question of ownership of the disputed house is a question of fact. All the three Courts have concurrently found that the petitioner was not the owner of the disputed property through purchase. The findings arrived at by the three Courts do not suffer from misreading/non‑reading of the evidence, The Courts below could believe or disbelieve the evidence. The Courts have applied conscious mind to the relevant evidence and given sound and cogent reasons in support of their decisions. We do not see any compelling reasons to interfere with the impugned judgments/decrees.
4. No case is made out for interference. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. A.A./N‑394/S Leave refused.