Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special leave to Appeal No.1126 of 19tsd, decided on 31st October, 1988.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur hunch. dated 22‑6‑1983, in R.S.A. No. 280/79).

Art.185(3)‑‑Findings on question of fact‑‑Concurrent findings on question of fact by three courts below ‑Held, cannot be interfered with‑‑Leave to appeal refused. ‑‑[Question Fact].

Muhammad Afzal Watto, Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M.M. Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Aslam,..

Advocate-on-record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 31st October, 1983.

The facts gloving rise to this petition :,.re, briefly, that Muhammad Hussain petitioner who is a Lambardar, was sent by the Tetis0dar to civil prison for failing to deposit of the land revenue amounting to about its. 3,000 collected by him. He was met in the jail by Muhammad Sadiq, alongwith the local Patwari. It is alleged that he told him, that he would pay the said amount to the Tehsildar and get him released he was asked by Sadiq aforesaid to sign certain documents in this connection, which he signed promptly. He was thereafter released on 28‑I1‑1969. A year later, on 28‑10‑1971, the petitioner filed a suit against Sadiq Muhammad respondent alleging that the documents got signed by him from the petitioner when he was in jail, were in fact, mutations regarding the alleged sale of 113 Kanals of land by Muhammad Hussain Lambardar (petitioner) in favour of Sadiq Muhammad and that the latter had obtained his (petitioner's) signature on the same by fraud and misrepresentation. The civil Court framed as many as 10 issues. Of them Issue No. 2 reads as follows:‑

"Whether the mutation No. 103 sanctioned on 22‑4‑1970 was product of collusion and fraud O.P.P."

This as well as the other issues were decided by the learned Civil Judge against the petitioner. He then filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed on 11‑3‑1979. The petitioner filed R.F.A. before the High Court which, too, was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

Hence the present petition.

2. Before us the main contention raised by the petitioner s Counsel was that it has been established on the record that the signature on the mutations had been procured by the respondent 1ilougr; fraud Band misrepresentation. However, in view of the concurrent finding by all the three Courts below on this question of fact we are not inclined to interfere with the same. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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