Muhammad Aslam And Other vs Abdul Wahab And Other
This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the trial court's decree granting possession of agricultural land to the respondents through pre-emption. The petitioners, who had purchased the land in 1977, challenged the lower courts' findings, arguing that the land was 'Bunjar Qadeem' (uncultivatable) and thus not subject to pre-emption, that the suit was time-barred regarding certain minor respondents, and that the plea of waiver was incorrectly decided. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the arguments regarding the nature of the land and the limitation period were misconceived because no issues were framed nor evidence adduced on these points before the trial court. Consequently, the Court refused to entertain these new pleas for the first time in appellate proceedings. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts, noting they were supported by evidence and remained unassailable. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts will not entertain new factual contentions that were neither framed as issues nor supported by evidence in the trial court.
- Can a party raise a new factual contention in appellate proceedings if no issue was framed or evidence adduced on that point in the trial court?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference if they are supported by evidence?
JUDGMENT FALAK SHER, J.- This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. 2482-L and 2483-L of 2001 having commonality of facts and law viz. The petitioners having purchased 240 kanals of agricultural land situated in Kotla Mai, Tehsil Khanpur, District Rahim Yar Khan from Zaid Muhammad for a sum of Rs. 2,42,500/- through registered sale-deed dated 5.4.1977, were exposed to Abdul Wahab and Abdul Rahim etc., respondents' suits for possession through pre-emption, respectively asserting superior right of pre-emption being owners in the estate, which were decreed by the Civil Judge, Khanpur, District Rahimyar Khan through consolidated judgment dated 27.6.1984, holding that the respondents being rival pre-emptors were entitled to the suit land in equal shares.
2. Whose findings, on appeal, were affirmed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dismissing petitioners' Regular First Appeals Nos. 51 and 52 of 1984 as well as that of Abdur Rahim etc. (RFA 86/1984) respondents in C.P. 2483-L/2001, upholding inter alia the respondents' superior right of preemption, repelling the plea of waiver being a conscious renunciation of one's rights, vide the impugned judgment dated 7.6.2001.
3. Against which leave to appeal is being sought primarily contending that the land in question being Bunjar Qadeem was uncultivatable, thus was not an agricultural land amenable to pre- emption; respondents Nos. 13 to 15 being minors qua them the suit was time-barred and the plea of waiver has not been properly appreciated.
4. Which we are afraid, are misconceived because admittedly neither any issue qua the former contentions was framed nor any evidence to that effect was adduced, thus cannot be allowed to be canvassed for the first time in these proceedings. While concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts duly borne out by the' evidence adduced are unexceptional which the learned counsel could not dislodge. Resultantly these petitions being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed and leave declined.