1995SCMR207 (PLP)
ASMATULLAH KHAN and others — Appellants Versus JHANGI KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR207 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | ASMATULLAH KHAN and others — Appellants Versus JHANGI KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR207 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR207 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR207 (PLP) (ASMATULLAH KHAN and others — Appellants Versus JHANGI KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Zahoor Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 456 of 1992).
- Mian Younis Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (appeared late) with Appellant in persons Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 456 of 1992).
- Mian Younis Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (appeared late) with Appellant in person and Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 457 of 1992).
- Abdul Aziz Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and Zahoor Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 457 of 1992)
- Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order of Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench, dated 3-12-1991 in R.FAs. No's 8 and 11 of 1989).
Art. 185(3)
Concurrent findings of Courts below on question of fact-- Effect
Propositions canvassed in cross-appeals related to questions of fact-- Findings of High Court and Trial Court on such questions being concurrent, parties in neither of such appeals were able to show that such findings suffered from any infirmity
Appeals against findings of fact were not competent in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.
These are two appeals by special leave from the judgment dated 3-12-1991 of the Peshawar High Court, Dera Ismail Khan Bench, whereby the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Tank, dismissing the two cross-suits filed by the parties were affirmed.
2. On 19-9-1985 Jhangi Khan, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 457/1992 and respondent in Civil Appeal No. 456/1992 filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.3,00,000 against Asmatullah Khan, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 456/1992 and respondent in Civil Appeal No. 457/1992. He alleged that he had given Rs.5,00,000 to Asmatullah Khan for purchasing immovable property for him. Asmatullah Khan did not purchase any property and on his demand he returned only Rs.2,00,000 through a bank draft and kept back rest of the amount. On 16-i1-1985 Asmatullah Khan also brought a suit against Jhangi Khan for a declaration to the effect that he Was the owner in possession of a house situate on Dera Tank Road, Tank. He alleged that the house belonged to Jhangi Khan who had undertaken to sell the same to him. By way of consideration Jhangi Khan had received Rs.5,90,000 and only a sum of Rs.10,000 remained payable. In the alternative, he asked for a decree against Jhangi Khan for the return of the purchase amount which he had so far paid to the latter together with a penalty.
3. The two suits were tried together. The learned trial Court held that Jhangi Khan had not been able to prove that he had given Rs.5,00,000 to Asmatullah Khan. It also held that Asmatullah Khan had failed to establish that Jhangi Khan had agreed to sell his house to him or had received a substantial part of consideration. Accordingly, it dismissed both the suits.
4. Both parties filed regular first appeals in the High Court. A Division Bench affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeals.
5. The propositions being canvassed in these two appeals relate to questions of fact. The findings of the High Court and the trial Court on these questions are concurrent and learned counsel appearing for the parties in neither of these two appeals have been able to show that these findings suffer from any infirmity.
6. It is common ground between the parties that at one stage Asmatullah Khan had paid Rs.2,00,000 to Jhangi Khan by a bank draft but the evidence with regard to the nature of the payment is so scanty that it is difficult to regard it as supporting either of the two versions. These appeals are without any merit and are hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. AA./A-1166/S Appeals dismissed.