MUHAMMAD vs Mst. SHARFAN AND OTHERS
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's second appeals by the High Court, which had overturned the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff. The petitioner sought a declaration of his status as a 'Mustagil Doam', a specific category of occupancy tenant, regarding the suit land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established his claimed tenancy rights, particularly in light of conflicting oral evidence and entries in the revenue records. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the findings of the lower appellate courts. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim through either oral evidence or the revenue records. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the findings of the lower appellate courts that the petitioner did not establish the requisite tenancy status. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact where the evidence, including revenue records, fails to support the petitioner's claim and no legal justification for interference is demonstrated.
- Can a plaintiff succeed in a claim for declaration of tenancy status based on oral evidence alone when revenue records do not support the claim?
- Does an appellate court have grounds to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding tenancy status when the evidence is insufficient?
- Section 6, Tenancy Act 1887
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-These two petitions, arising out of judgment/s and decree/s dated 4th October, 1978 dismissing plaintiff's 2nd appeals, raise same question of law and facts. They are, therefore, being disposed of together.
2. ' The petitioner (plaintiff) had filed two suits to seek declaration that he had rights of a Mustagil Doam (interpreted by the learned counsel as a peculiar type of occupancy tenant under section 6 of Tenancy Act (No, XVI of 1887) on the suit land. The defendants (respondents) had denied this claim, with similar assertion in their own favour. The learned trial Court decreed the suits. The respondents' 1st appeals were allowed' and the suits were dismissed. In the High Court although a question was also raised regarding the meaning of the expression Mustagil Doam, yet the main controversy regarding the declaration sought by the petitioner was decided with reference to the factual aspects of the case, emphasis having been laid on the entries in the revenue records.
3. Learned counsel has contended that the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner should have been relied upon, particularly when the old entries in the revenue records existing in the year 1940 and prior thereto could not be changed except in due course of law.
4. ' We have read the evidence relied upon from the petitioner's side. It does not help him. The revenue record as rightly held by the two learned lower appellate Courts, also does not establish petitioner's claim. No justification has been made out for interference with their findings. These petitions have no force and are accordingly dismissed.