Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Regular Second Appeal No. 781 of 1965, decided on 22nd December, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 100‑‑Second appeal‑‑Dispute over sale of house‑‑Courts below, on basis of evidence, concurrently finding that plaintiffs‑respondents had purchased suit house from KD who had purchased it from KB in 1938 and latter herself had purchased the house from her father in 1909 by means of a registered sale‑deed‑‑Such finding, held, was a concurrent finding on question of pure fact and was not open to be assailed in second appeal on mere ground that copy of sale‑deed was not available on record at time of its perusal by District Judge‑‑Clear recital available in document almost fifty years old that house in suit had been purchased exclusively by KD, the vendor of plaintiffs‑‑Decree passed against appellants was clearly unexceptionable‑‑Appeal dismissed.
Iftikhar‑ul‑Haq Khan for Appellants.
Aftab Iqbal Chaudhary for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th March, 1984.
This second appeal, against the appellate decree, dated 19‑4‑1965, passed by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat; was instituted on 31‑7‑1965, against Muhammad Sharif son of Ahmad, Imam Din son of Rehmat and Abdul Karim son of Noor Ahmad, who had filed a suit for possession of a house situated in village Mander, Tehsil Kharian, District Gujrat. Trial Court had decreed their suit on 28‑9‑1964 and this decree was affirmed in appeal.
2. In this second appeal, three similar applications bearing respective C.M. Nos. 346/C and 347/C of 1968, dated 10‑12‑1968 and C.M. No. 2461/C of 1968, dated 29‑10‑1968 have been filed for being allowed to implead the legal heirs of Muhammad Sharif respondent No. 1 who, it is stated in the first mentioned two applications, had died during the pendency of the appeal below and his legal representatives had also been brought on the record but the omission of their names from the array of respondents had resulted from incorrect description contained in the certified copies issued by the Copying Agency. However, in the last mentioned application, it is asserted:----
"That the petitioner Ghulam Haider son of Muhammad Din did not know that Muhammad Sharif had died. The petitioner came to know about the death of the respondent Muhammad Sharif from the letter received from the clerk of the counsel in the case."
Whereas the first two applications were directed on 13‑10‑1969 to be heard alongwith the main appeal at the time of its disposal, the last- mentioned one, filed actually on 1‑11‑1968, has not been put up for hearing so far.
3. There is no person by the name of Ghulam Haider as yet concerned in this litigation and muchless may such person be a petitioner. His affidavit annexed to this petition is, dated 15‑10‑1968 but the one filed with the other two petitions is that of Muhammad Din himself, sworn on 2‑12‑1968. Hence, not only that absence of knowledge of Ghulam Haider, as is alleged in the application, is simply irrelevant but is also belied by the averments made in the other two applications and, obviously, these stands cannot both be correct. Whereas it is correct that in the certified copy of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the name of Muhammad Sharif himself appears as the first respondent but in the certified copy of the decree‑sheet issued on the basis of the same application, bearing No. 1884, entry with regard to the name of Muhammad Sharif son of Ahmad Khan has been made as 'deceased through Begum, widow, Yaqoob, Latif, Sultan sons, Zubaida, Khudeja daughters', therefore, explanation attempted to be made out in neither of these applications can be accepted as correct. It is a different matter that the names of his legal representatives mentioned in the copy of the decree‑sheet are slightly different from those given in these applications but the names of his one son Latif and the two daughters are correct. An appeal lies against the decree but not against the judgment and the above disparity of names of his legal representatives cannot be 'a justification for their being clean left out from the array of respondents and the deceased Muhammad Sharif being impleaded, instead. All the three applications are, therefore, rejected.
4. The only question raised in the suit with some seriousness was about the title. On the basis of evidence led, the two Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs had purchased the house in suit (vide Exh. P.1) from Karam Din son of Gauhar who had purchased it from Mst. Karam Bibi in the year 1938 on the basis of a registered sale‑deed, a certified copy whereof is mentioned by the trial Court to have been produced as Exh. P.4. Mst. Karam Bibi herself had purchased it from her father Budha by means of registered sale‑deed, dated 2‑3‑1909 (Exh. P.3). This is a concurrent finding on question of pure fact and is not open to be assailed in this second appeal on the mere ground that the copy of the registered sale‑deed from Mst. Karam Bibi to Karam Din was not available on the record at the time of its perusal by the learned Additional District Judge. There is a clear recital in Exh. P.1, which is an almost fifty years old document, that the house in suit had been purchased exclusively by Karam Din son of Gauhar, the vendor of the plaintiffs. The decree passed against the appellants is clearly unexceptionable.
5. There is no force in this appeal which, even otherwise is imperfectly constituted as mentioned above, and, therefore, it is dismissed with costs.
S.Q./M‑81L Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer