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 a dispute over suit-land. The original owner, Noor Hussain, sold the land to Sana Ullah via a registered sale-deed in 1970. The petitioner, Hassan Din, claimed that Sana Ullah resold the land back to Noor Hussain in 1973 through an endorsement on the back of the original sale-deed, after which Noor Hussain sold it to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the endorsement constituted a valid conveyance of property. The High Court found that the endorsement did not operate as a valid conveyance in law and that the trial court's finding on the comparison of signatures was erroneous. The Supreme Court examined the record and found no factual or legal infirmity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the endorsement was legally ineffective to convey title, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal.
- Whether an endorsement on the back of a registered sale-deed can operate as a valid conveyance of land in the eyes of law?
- Can an appellate or revisional court substitute its own view on the comparison of signatures when the trial court's observation is found to be incorrect?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the petitioner fails to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment?
ORDER
' It is admitted even before us that the original owner of the suit-land namely Noor Hussiin 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 the 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 Honourable 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 signature of the said Sana 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 Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner who had 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 non-reading of any material available on record.
4. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. Leave refused.