| Case ID |
395ce4b6-198c-4dc1-b661-1139fb3a63e1 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No.383 of 1993 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 30, 1996 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 30, 1996 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court. The Court restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which had originally decreed the suit for the recovery of dowry articles valued at Rs.1,51,903. The High Court's modification of this decree to Rs.50,000 was found to be erroneous and unfounded. The Court emphasized that the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were not open to challenge in the second appeal, as the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by reappraising the evidence. The decision reinforced the principle that the function of evaluating evidence lies primarily with the Trial Court. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Mussarat Sultana vs Muhammad Saeed, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed critical issues surrounding the valuation of dowry articles and the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals. The case originated from a suit by Mussarat Sultana against her former husband for the recovery of dowry articles valued at Rs.1,68,703. The Trial Court ruled in her favor, awarding Rs.1,51,903, but the High Court later reduced this amount to Rs.50,000, citing hearsay evidence as a basis for its decision. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had improperly interfered with the concurrent findings of fact established by the lower courts. It underscored that the valuation of evidence and the credibility of witnesses is primarily the responsibility of the Trial Court, and the High Court's role is limited to ensuring that no procedural errors or misreadings of evidence have occurred. This case highlights the importance of respecting the factual determinations made by lower courts, especially in matters involving personal rights and property. The Supreme Court's restoration of the original decree emphasizes the need for judicial restraint in appellate review, particularly in cases involving sensitive issues such as dowry, which continue to resonate in contemporary legal discussions. The decision serves as a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the principle that factual findings should not be lightly set aside unless there is clear evidence of error in the lower courts' assessments. Key terms include dowry, jurisdiction, appellate review, and evidence valuation. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
AJMAL MIAN,
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN,
MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN,
JEHANGIR
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Abdul Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court,
Muhammad Alam Ch., Advocate-on-Record
|
| Petitioners |
MUSSARAT SULTANA
|
| Respondents |
MUHAMMAD SAEED
|
| Citations |
1997 SLD 922,
1997 SCMR 1866
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
|
| Sections |
100,
185
|