1989 PLP 517 (SCMR)
ALLAH DAD and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 517 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH DAD and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evidence Act (I of 1872) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 517 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evidence Act (I of 1872) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 517 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 517 (SCMR) (ALLAH DAD and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Shah Bokhari (absent) and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on- Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th September, 1988.
- Sardar Shah Bokhari (absent) and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 12-4-1983 in R.S.A. No.16 of 1983).
S.102--Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal--Gift--Burden of proof--Findings of fact by Courts below--Interference with--Grounds urged related to appreciation of evidence, findings of fact by Courts below and wrongly placing burden of issue in the factual field on petitioners--Nature of dispute and particular issue did not support the view that burden was wrongly placed--Such grounds hardly furnished any justification for setting aside findings of fact which were rendered after contest between parties in which none suffered any prejudice--No infirmity being noticeable in findings of Courts below, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The defendants in a declaratory suit regarding inheritance and a gift of the suit property which belonged to the father of the parties, have sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the '' High Court of their Regular Second Appeal. The respondents (daughters)' suit claiming right in the property left by the parties' father, was decreed. The petitioners first and second appeal having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal. The petitioners' plea to the effect that although the respondents were entitled to the inheritance of the parties' father, they had lost that right because their father had in his lifetime gifted the suit property to the petitioners. The grounds now urged before this Court relate to the appreciation of evidence and findings of fact by the learned Courts below. After hearing the learned counsel, we have not been able to find any infirmity noticeable by this Court, in them. Learned counsel also tried to show that the burden of issue in the factual field, was wrongly placed on the petitioners. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the particular issue, we do not agree that the burden was wrongly placed. It hardly furnishes any justification for setting aside the findings of fact by the learned trial Court which were rendered after a contest between the parties in which none suffered any prejudice. There is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. AA./A‑383/S Leave to appeal refused.