Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1201 of 1981, decided on 15th April, 1984.

(Against the judgment and order of the High Court Lahore dated 12‑12‑1981 in C . R . No.1589 / D of 1981).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑Question agitated in all Courts below found to be primarily a question of fact‑ Trial Court as well as first appellate Court discussing entire evidence and recording finding of fact‑‑No case of misreading of evidence or misapplication of law which could be interfered with in revisional powers of High Court or further examined in Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15th April, 1984.

‑‑ The petitioner, an unsuccessful defen dant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 12‑12‑1981 whereby a revision petition filed by him challeng ing the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two subordinate Courts, was dismissed.

In the year 1969, the petitioner was employed in the Jail Depart ment and was posted in Faisalabad. He had obtained on rent a quarter attached to a bungalow owned and occupied by Mst. Kalsoom Begum a widow, the plaintiff‑respondent. On 3rd of June, 1969 a sale‑deed was said to have been executed and got registered by the respondent No. 1 whereby she was shown to have sold the said quarter to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.2,000. On 3rd of September, 1970 she instituted a Civil suit challenging the sale on the ground that she had not executed the sale‑deed, that it was fraudulent, invalid, illegal and without consideration and ineffective on her rights. The suit was contested; a number of issues were framed and on the material issue, the trial Court held that the sale‑deed was not executed by the plaintiff respondent; that it was fraudulent and without consideration.

On appeal, the District Judge re‑examined the entire evidence and held as follows:‑

"All the facts and circumstances brought on the record prove beyond doubt that the sale was without consideration and the signatures of respondent No.l were obtained on Exh.P.4 by misrepresentation of facts and he actually did not sell the property. The finding of lower Court on issue No.6 is correct and it is maintained."

The revision filed by the petitioner was dismisses in limine with the following observations:‑

"No misreading of evidence was, however, indicated by the learned counsel. He also did not point out any other defect justifying interference with concurrent finding of the learned lower Court on the question of fact, namely, whether the sale in dispute was obtained fraudulently and was without consideration. It is, therefore, not possible for me to disturb that finding."

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plain tiff‑respondent was literate, a social worker and competent to deal with the property and to manage it. In view of the marriage of her nephew with a daughter of the petitioner, she had sold this quarter to the petitioner and another to her nephew Azim. She had challenged both the alienations, succeeded in the case of the petitioner but not so in the case of her nephew Azim. It is stated that the letter written to the son wherein rent of the property was mentioned has been misread because it was not rent, which was rent of the quarter which was in dispute but the charges for electricity. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that oral evidence led by the plaintiff was insufficient by all standards to dislodge the presumptions arising out of a duly registered deed which had the seal and the sanction of the registrar.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and find that it was primarily a question of fact which was agitated in all the Courts. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has discussed the entire evidence and has recorded the finding of fact. There was no case of misreading of evidence or misapplication of law. In such a situation even though a different view on the same evidence: may be possible it will not make out a case for interference in revision powers of the High Court or for further examination in this Court. Hence leave to appeal is refused.

S. Q. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.