RASHEEDA BEGUM through L.Rs, and anothers vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR GHORI
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding concurrent findings of lower courts which decreed a suit for specific performance of a contract filed by the respondent against the petitioners. The core legal questions involved whether petitioner No.2 was a minor at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell and whether the courts below erred in refusing additional evidence regarding age and documents. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact establishing the majority of petitioner No.2 based on medical evidence (radiological report) and official records (National Identity Card application form) were unexceptionable, and that the refusal to allow additional evidence was justified as existing material was sufficient. The Court laid down that concurrent findings of fact regarding age and capacity, supported by reliable medical and documentary evidence, will not be interfered with in leave to appeal, and additional evidence cannot be claimed as a matter of right when the existing record suffices for a just decision.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the age of a party can be interfered with by the Supreme Court when supported by medical and documentary evidence?
- Is a party entitled to produce additional evidence as a matter of right when the existing record is sufficient for the pronouncement of judgment?
- Whether an agreement executed by a person who is proven to be a major at the time of execution is valid for specific performance?
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 24-10-2001 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed Civil Revision No,537-D of 1995, filed by the petitioners, upholding the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
2. Facts briefly are that the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract regarding 2/7 share of House No,5/253, situated in Ward No,5, Mandi Bahauddin. The pleas taken by the respondent were controverted by the petitioners-defendants and due to contradictory pleas of the parties, issues were framed and the parties led their evidence. The learned Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, after scanning the entire evidence, decreed the suit. The petitioners riled an appeal against the above judgment, which was rejected by the learned District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, through his judgment, dated 15-9-1994. The petitioners filed a civil revision in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which too met the same fate as it was dismissed through judgment, dated 24-10-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No,2 was minor, as such the agreement dated 5-1-1984 could not have been executed and the learned.
Courts below committed an error in not allowing the additional evidence to rebut the stance of the respondent is devoid of any force.
4. We have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. We have noticed that issues were framed by the trial Court to this effect on 26-6-1990 and the learned trial Court after considering the report of the Radiologist held that the petitioner No,2 was more than 24 years of age. The learned District Judge in para. 12 of his judgment has discussed in detail this issue and the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, has maintained the same by advancing cogent reasons. It would be appropriate to reproduce the reasoning of the learned Judge in this regard which is in the following terms:-- "The facts on the record clearly show that petitioner No,2 was major at the time of execution of the agreement. Fahim-ud-Din, father of petitioner No,2 had shown the year of birth of petitioner No,2 as 1965 in Form " " submitted by him for obtaining National Identity Card. This year of birth tallies with the view of Radiologist, who had examined petitioner No,2 and certified that his age was 24 years on the date of examination."
5. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has also given solid reasons for not allowing the application of the petitioners for additional documents as it has rightly been pointed out that the material already placed on record was sufficient for pronouncement of the judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference.
6. Resultantly, this petition has no merit, which is accordingly, dismissed and .