Mirza. INAYAT BAIG represented by Muhammad Aslam Baig and others vs MUHAMMAD YOUNUS
This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court arising out of a civil suit regarding an evacuee property dispute over the roof of a shop claimed to be part of a transferred residential portion. The core legal question was whether a civil court could grant relief amounting to the modification of a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) after the repeal of evacuee laws when no evidence existed to show the Settlement Department declared the disputed roof as part of the petitioners' house. The Supreme Court held that the civil court cannot indirectly modify the PTD, and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of evidence of misreading or non-reading of evidence, the court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding property titles derived from settlement authorities.
- Whether a civil court can indirectly modify a Permanent Transfer Deed after the repeal of evacuee laws?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been preferred at the judgment dated 2-11-2000 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in a civil revision arising out of a civil suit.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to an evacuee property consisting upon a residential portion and a shop. Mirza Inayat Baig, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was transferred residential portion whereas the shop underneath was transferred to the respondent by the Settlement Department. The claim of the petitioners in the suit was that the roof of the shop was part of the residential portion which was transferred to their predecessor-in-interest and was being used by them as courtyard of their house. The suit was resisted by the respondent in which ultimately a decree was passed by the learned Trial Judge which was reversed by the learned Additional District Judge and the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment of the Appellate Court was further upheld by the High Court in the light of judgment in Nazir and others v.
Syed Israr Ahmad and others 1981 SCM R 829.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that notwithstanding the omission of roof of the shop as part of the property of petitioner in the PTD, issued in their favour, the Settlement Department did not transfer it as part of the shop because it was being used as courtyard of the residential portion and consequently, for all intents and purposes, it would be deemed to be the part of their house, therefore, the Courts were misled in coming to the conclusion that the disputed roof was an integral part of the shop.
4. We having perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, have not been able to find out any evidence on record, oral or, documentary, to suggest that the roof of the shop was declared as courtyard of the house of petitioners by Settlement Department. The house was transferred in 1973 and Mirza Inayat Baig, transferee of the house, instead of taking the matter with the Settlement Department at the relevant time or at any subsequent stage, filed the civil suit in 1984 and indirectly, sought relief of modification of PTD from the Civil Court after repeal of the evacuee laws.
5. We, in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, would take no exception to the conclusion drawn by the learned Judge in the High Court on a question of fact, Learned counsel has not been able to show us any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other legal defect in the impugned judgment calling for our interference. In the light of foregoing discussion, we do not find any substance in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Leave is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. ABIDA RASHID vs ASHIQ HUSSAIN And Otherss 2011 YLR 2399