In Brief
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a property portion and a roof chaubara based on an unregistered agreement, while the defendant claimed to have purchased the property via a registered deed in 1999. Both the trial court and first appellate court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, but the High Court allowed the second appeal by reappreciating evidence. The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal merely because it views evidence differently. Under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, second appellate jurisdiction is limited to questions of law and procedure, not reappreciation of facts. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.