MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding concurrent findings of fact in a suit for possession filed by the respondent. The respondent claimed ownership of the property, alleging that the petitioners had forcibly occupied it during the pendency of an earlier suit for permanent injunction. The petitioners contested the suit, asserting ownership based on an unregistered sale-deed from 1955, adverse possession, and limitation. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, and both the first appellate court and the High Court dismissed the petitioners' subsequent appeals and revision. The Supreme Court evaluated the contentions regarding the unregistered sale-deed, the concurrent findings of fact based on a registered sale-deed and revenue records, and the grievance regarding cross-examination of a witness. Finding no legal infirmity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings were unexceptionable. Resultantly, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding ownership and possession warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does an unregistered sale-deed for a consideration of less than one hundred rupees override a registered sale-deed and concurrent revenue records?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal is maintainable against concurrent judgments that suffer from no legal infirmity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence?
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal from the Lahore High Court judgment, dated 6-5-1999 upholding concurrent findings of fact in a suit for possession of the suit property brought by the respondent against the petitioners.
2. Respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit property claiming to be the owner thereof on the averments that the petitioners had forcibly occupied the same. It was the case of the plaintiff that during pendency of earlier suit for permanent injunction the petitioners encroached upon the property in suit hence the suit for possession.
3. Petitioners contested the suit on the premises that the property had been sold by the respondent and that they had been in possession thereof for the last more than 12 years and lastly that the suit was barred by time. They disclosed names of different persons between whom the property changed hands, which was ultimately purchased by them in the year 1955 through unregistered sale-deed dated 7-5-1955. On assessment of evidence trial Court decreed the suit. First appeal preferred by the petitioners and the Civil Revision in the High Court failed. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the document of sale executed by Lal Khan in favour of the petitioners regarding transfer of property for consideration being less than Rs,100 did not require registration under the provisions of law and that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioners had forcibly occupied the property in suit. All the Courts below have relied upon the registered sale-deed in favour of the respondent coupled with the entries in the Jamabandi Register. There are concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the respondent was the lawful owner of the property in suit and the defendants status was not better than trespassers hence the defence plea was repelled and petitioners' defence rejected throughout. Learned counsel contended that the petitioners were disallowed to cross examine D.W.5 Lal Khan who deposed against their interest and the trial Court acted illegally in refusing to permit the petitioners to cross examine the witness being a hostile witness. This argument was raised before the High Court and the learned Judge in Chambers has dealt with it elaborately and in a comprehensive manner which need not be reiterated in this judgment.
5. In our view judgments rendered by the Courts below and affirmed by the High Court do not suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality. There is no misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence on the record nor is it a fit case for interference by this Court.
6. Resultantly this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.