1989 PLP 516 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 516 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 516 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 516 (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 516 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 4th September, 1988.
- Rana Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 26-10-1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in R.S.A. No.286/76).
S. 100--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Benamidar--Second appeal--Scope--Question of fact--Sale--Concurrent findings of fact of two Courts below that petitioner was owner of property and not a 'Benamidar' interfered with by High Court declaring petitioner to be a Benamidar and not the owner of property--Misreading of record by the High Court was also pointed out where it had held that original sale-deed had been produced at the trial by the respondents--Leave to appeal granted to consider contention raised.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The dispute between the parties in this petition re ales to a house situate in Sheikhupura. The petitioner is the brother‑in‑law of the respondent. The house was purchased by the petitioner in 1946 prior to Independence. However, it remained in the occupation of the respondent. On 22‑7‑71, the respondent filed a suit for seeking a declaration to the effect that he was the owner of the house as it had in fact been purchased by him and that the petitioner was merely a 'benamidar'. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court inter alia on the basis of finding that the petitioner was not a 'benamidar'. The respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The respondent then filed a second appeal in the High Court. A learned Single Judge accepted the appeal, set aside the finding of the subordinate Courts and granted the declaration sought by the respondent. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the question whether the petitioner was not the real owner but only a 'benamidar' was one of fact and it was not open to the High Court in second appeal to interfere with the concurrent finding of the subordinate Courts. It is also pointed out that the High Court misread the record when it held that the original sale‑deed had been produced at the trial by the respondent.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with direction to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months. The original record of the trial Court be also summoned. AA./M‑657/S????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Leave to appeal granted.