1989 PLP 501 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others — Petitioners Versus FAZAL KARIM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 501 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal, Usman Ali Shah and Naimuddin, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others — Petitioners Versus FAZAL KARIM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 501 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 501 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal, Usman Ali Shah and Naimuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 501 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others — Petitioners Versus FAZAL KARIM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court , and- Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1988.
- Qazi Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court , and‑ Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, dated 5-6-1988, in C. R. No. 35 of 1982).
Art.185(3)--Petition for leave to appeal--Dispute as to ownership of house- Finding that such house was jointly owned and possessed by parties was a finding of fact recorded by three Courts below--Plea of sole ownership was raised for the first time in suit after sixteen years from the date of issuance of P.T.O.--Finding as to title being a finding of fact did not call for any interference--No merit found in petition, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NAIMUDDIN, J: ‑Mushtaq Ahmad, Fazal Karim, Fazal Azim and Abdul Karim are brothers inter se. They were jointly transferred the house in question under P.T.O. No.457034 dated 3rd March, 1960 and the Permanent Transfer Deed issued in their joint names in 1963. Some of them have died and represented by their legal representatives. Three brothers Fazal Karim, Fazal Azim and Abdul Karim filed a civil suit, being Civil Suit No.103/1 of 1976/78 for partition and separate possession of their 3/4th share in the house on the basis of joint ownership and possession Mushtaq Ahmad who was the defendant in the suit now in this petition is represented by his legal representatives took the plea that he is exclusive owner of the property. The plea was rejected by the Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad and a preliminary decree for possession of 3/4th share of the suit property by partition was passed by the judgment and decree dated 14th January, 1980. The appeal and the revision application both failed. Now, the petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench Abbottabad, whereby the revision application filed by their predecessor‑in interest was dismissed. In our view the finding that the house was jointly owned and possessed is a finding of fact and has been confirmed in the appeal against which the revision was dismissed. Indeed, it is in evidence that even payment of the price of the house was paid from the compensation books of the three brothers, who filed the suit. The plea of sole ownership was raised for the first time in suit filed by the respondents and their predecessors‑in‑interest after 16 years from the date of P.T.O. which was issued in 1960 and in the Civil Suit No.3221 of 1977 which was for declaration of the title filed by Mushtaq Ahmad and was dismissed by the same Court on 14th January, 1988. The finding as to title being a finding of fact does not call for any interference by this Court and the counsel has not raised any question of law worth consideration. We, therefore, find no merits in this petition and accordingly dismiss it. AA./M‑667/S Leave to appeal refused.