SHER BAHADUR KHAN and others vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN and others
This appeal arises from a civil suit instituted by the appellants' predecessor, seeking a declaration of ownership of property based on an alleged agreement of sale dated 14th January 1961. The appellants challenged the validity of a subsequent inheritance mutation in favor of the respondents. Following multiple rounds of litigation, including remands by the First Appellate Court, the trial court eventually dismissed the suit, a decision upheld by the First Appellate Court and subsequently affirmed by the Peshawar High Court in civil revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the authenticity of the agreement deed and the payment of consideration were supported by the evidence on record. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the handwriting expert's report and the trial court's own comparison of signatures confirmed the agreement deed was fraudulent. The Court affirmed the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, absent any misreading or non-reading of material evidence, will not be interfered with in appellate jurisdiction.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts if no misreading or non-reading of evidence is demonstrated?
- Does a report from a handwriting expert concluding that signatures on a document are bogus constitute sufficient grounds for dismissing a claim based on that document?
- Is a trial court permitted to compare signatures on a disputed document with admitted signatures to determine authenticity?
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the impugned judgment, dated 11th June, 1999 of a learned Single Judge of Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench D.I. Khan in Civil Revision No, 61 of 1997.
2. Late Awal Khan, father of appellants instituted a suit for declaration that he had purchased the suit property by means of an agreement deed, dated 14th January, 1961 on payment of sale consideration of Rs,31,000 and, therefore, he had become owner in possession of the said property.
It was further averred in the plaint that Mutation No,15842, dated 22nd January, 1984 of inheritance attested by the Revenue Officer in favor of respondents Nos.2 to 8 was also void and ineffective and the same was liable to be cancelled.
3. The suit was contested by the respondents. The civil Court after framing necessary issues on the divergent pleadings of the parties recorded their evidence. The suit of the appellants was decreed by the trial Court by means of judgment and decree, dated 21st April, 1991.
' However the First Appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Bannu vide judgment and decree, dated 16th September, 1991 remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with observations/directions made therein. The trial Court after hearing the parties stuck to its earlier decision and decreed the suit of the appellants, which was again remanded by the First Appellate Court as the same was found to have been decreed in disregard of the directions of the appellate Court. Eventually the trial Court by judgment and decree, dated 19th November, 1996 dismissed the suit of the appellants. Appeal of the appellants thereagainst was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Bannu vide judgment and decree dated 3rd April, 1997. Therefore, the appellants filed Civil Revision No,61 of 1997, which also met the same fate by impugned judgment, dated 11th June, 1999 passed by Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, D.I. Khan. Hence.This appeal by leave of the Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that execution of the agreement had been duly proved by the production of one witness and that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore was also positive. It was further argued that the appellants were delivered possession of the suit property as a result of the agreement of sale and necessary entries were also made in the Khasra Girdawari.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length and have also gone through the available record. We find that original agreement deed as well as certain other relevant documents were sent to the handwriting expert by the trial Court and the report of the expert clearly revealed the signature of alleged executant Said Shah on the agreement deed was bogus.
Not only that the trial Court itself had also compared the signatures of Said Shah with the one available on the agreement deed with consent of the learned counsel for the parties and found that the signatures of Said Shah on the other documents was dissimilar to the one put on the questioned agreement deed. Even the payment of consideration was not proved. There were material contradictions in the statements of P.W.4 Faizullah Khan and P.W.5 Mir Ahmad Jan. All the three Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence. On record. No misreading or non-reading of material evidence as pointed out. In our opinion the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity to warrant interference.
6. For the above reasons, this appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.
No order as to costs.