Hassan Din vs Sanaullah
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the judgment of the High Court regarding the ownership of suit land. The core legal question centered on whether an endorsement on the back of a registered sale-deed could legally operate as a re-conveyance or re-sale of land from the vendee back to the original owner, thereby validating a subsequent sale to the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the alleged endorsement was not a valid conveyance in the eyes of law and that the High Court rightly set aside the trial court's finding regarding the comparison of signatures. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to point out any factual or legal infirmity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment. The key principle laid down is that an endorsement cancelling a registered sale-deed without proper legal conveyance does not transfer title, and factual findings of signature comparisons by appellate courts based on record will be upheld absent legal error.
- Does an endorsement on the back of a registered sale-deed cancelling the deed operate as a valid conveyance of land in the eyes of law?
- Can an appellate court substitute its own conclusion regarding the comparison of disputed and admitted signatures for that of the trial judge?
- What constitutes sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to interfere with a High Court judgment regarding appreciation of evidence?
ORDER
It is admitted even before us that the original owner of the suit land namely Noor Hussain had sold the land in question to Sana Ullah, respondent through a registered sale-deed dated 28.11.1970, Exh.
P-2. The case of Hassan Din, petitioner however is that in the year 1973, the said Sana Ullah had sold the said land back to the above- mentioned original owner namely Noor Hussain and it was thereafter that the said Noor Hussain had sold the same to him through a registered sale-deed dated 1.10.1973. This being so, the crucial question on which the fate of this case hinges was the factum of re-sale of the suit land by Sana Ullah, respondent to the original owner namely Noor Hussain. Reliance in this connection was placed on Exh. P- 2/1 which was an endorsement on the back of the above- mentioned sale-deed dated 28.11.1970 and through which endorsement Sana Ullah, respondent was alleged to have cancelled the above mentioned sale-deed dated 28.11.1970 executed by Noor Hussain in his favour and whereby he had conveyed the suit land back to the said Noor Hussain.
2. For detailed reasons recorded by the learned Judge in Chamber, it had been found by the Hon'ble High Court that the said alleged endorsement was no conveyance in the eyes of law for more than one reasons and further that the opinion of the learned Trial Judge that the alleged signatures of Sana Ullah, respondent on the said endorsement dated 12.4.1973 were similar to the admitted signatures of the said shah Ullah was not correct observation because as a result of the comparison of the said signatures of the said respondent, the learned Single Judge had reached a different conclusion.
3. The learned ASC for the petitioner who has been heard at some length, could not point out any factual or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment nor could it be shown to us that the said impugned judgment was based on misreading^of any evidence or that it was the result of nonreading of any material available on record.
4. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed . ,