Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.251 of 1985, decided on 20th June,

---S.115--Concurrent findings of facts--Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of--Where findings of facts were concurrently arrived at by two Courts below after appraisal of evidence on record and no case of misreading or non-reading of evidence was made out, such findings, held, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction or, ground that on re-appraisal of evidence, High Court possibly could take another and different view.

Mushtaq Ahmad Hashmi for Petitioners.

Islam Ali Qureshi for Respondent.

Allah Ditta, petitioner No.1, sold property in dispute in favour of the respondent, through sale-deeds Ex.P1 to P.10. Respondent filed suit for possession against the petitioners before the trial Court. The suit was contested and the following issues were framed:-

(1) Whether northern portion of the suit property was transferred by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.6 in lieu of dower. If so, to what effect OPD.

(2) Whether 1/4th of the southern portion of the disputed property was gifted away by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5. If so, to what effect OPD.

(3) Whether defendants 3 and 4 inherited the remaining portion of the disputed premises as heirs and if so, to what effect OPD.

(4) Whether defendants 3 and 4, raised construction on the disputed premises. If so, to what extent and with what expenses OPD.

(5) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the disputed property vide deeds dated 14-10-1969 OPD.

(6) Whether the boundaries of the disputed property are incomplete and incorrect OPD.

(7) Whether suit is hit by section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and cannot proceed OPD.

(8) What is the correct valuation of the suit for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction OPP.

(8) Relief.

After recording the evidence the learned trial Court decided all the issues against the petitioners and in favour of respondent/ plaintiff and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 20-9-1981. The appeal filed by the petitioners, the learned lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 27-3-1985, dismissed the same upholding the findings of the trial Court. The petitioners filed present revision petition before this Court. On 8-7-1986 C.M. 1384/C of 1985 was moved purporting to be on behalf of the petitioners with the prayer that they wanted to withdraw the revision petition which was dismissed as having been withdrawn. Petitioner No-3, namely Allah Bakhsh moved C.M.No.1475/C of 1986 stating that the learned counsel who, moved C.M.1384/C/1985 was not counsel on his behalf and that he never withdrew the revision petition to the extent of his rights. This C.M. was not contested by the respondent who admitted that Agha Ali Ahmad Khan, Advocate who moped the said C.M.1384/C of 1985 was not engaged by petitioner No. 3, therefore, C.M.1475/C of 1985 moved by the petitioner, was accepted vide order dated 1-6-1987. This revision petition was revived only to the extent of petitioner No. 3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim of the petitioner No.3 before the Court was that he was independently owner of a share of the property in dispute having inherited the same from Mst. Jannat Bibi. On this plea of petitioner No.3, issue No. 3 was framed which has been decided by both the Courts below against the petitioner No.3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.3 in support of this revision petition has contended that issue No. 3 having been proved therefore should have been answered in favour of petitioner No.3. I have gone through the findings of both the Courts below on issue No. 3 in which it has been held that the petitioner No.3 failed to prove that the property in dispute was ever owned by Mst. Jannat Bibi or Kalu or Jan Muhammad through whom she allegedly inherited the same. Learned counsel for petitioner No.3 could not satisfy me as to how and in what manner concurrent findings of facts suffer from any illegality. The petitioner No. 3 was claiming to be owner of the property in dispute with Allah Ditta who sold it to respondents through 10 sale-deeds Ex.Pl to P.10 but the petitioner No.3 did not file any suit against Allah Ditta objecting to the sales made by him. Had he any share in the property with him, it would have been in the normal course of events to have objected to it. However, the case of Allah Ditta was that before these sales he had conveyed a portion of the property in dispute to his wife in lieu of her dower in consideration of her Nikah with Allah Ditta petitioner No.1 and he further conveyed 1/4th of the property in dispute to Mst. Zohra another wife of petitioner No.1 on which, issues 1 and 2 were framed and both the issues were decided against Allah Ditta. It is apparent from this, that even before the sales in dispute to respondent, Allah Ditta petitioner No.1 had conveyed portions of the property in dispute to his two wives and it has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner No.3 that as per allegations of this petitioner in the written-statement regarding the extent to which Allah Ditta according to him was owning share in the property in dispute, the portions conveyed to his wives by Allah Ditta would be more than the share which in the property he was owning to which no exception was taken by petitioner No.3 and petitioner No.3 never challenged it before any Court of law. This conduct of the petitioner No.3 supports the findings of two Courts below which are concurrent findings of facts which cannot be interfered with. Their findings are further strengthened by the act of the other petitioners of withdrawal of revision petition which amounts to acceptance of findings of the Courts below by them as correct. It cannot be argued by petitioner No.3 that issue No.3 should have been decided in his favour. Both the Courts below correctly held that the petitioner No.3 did not prove his case. No case of misreading or non-reading of evidence has been made out by the learned counsel for petitioner. No.3 who could not point out any such thing. The learned counsel for the petitioner No.3 contends that on re-appraisal of evidence this Court could arrive at its own conclusions which might be different from the conclusions arrived at by both the Courts below. I am afraid I am not persuaded to accept this argument inasmuch as the re-appraisal of evidence even if results in the possibility of taking another view would not be a justification for interference in concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below on appraisal of evidence, this apart from the fact that after going through the evidence produced by petitioner No.3 even different view was not possible to be taken. The Courts below have not been shown to have acted with material irregularity amounting to illegality therefore the revision petition qua petitioner No.3 has also no force, which is hereby dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./A-183/L 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.