ABDUL REHMAN and others vs RABOO and others
This civil appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which had set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the appellants' suit for possession and mesne profits. The appellants claimed title to the land through a gift from their father, while the respondents were in possession. The core legal question was whether the appellants had established their title and whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence regarding the alleged gift and the respondents' possession. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to prove the gift, rendering their arguments regarding the respondents' status as trespassers inapplicable. The Court affirmed the High Court's findings, noting that the presumption of truth attached to revenue records under the Land Revenue Act had been correctly addressed and that the respondents provided credible evidence of long-standing possession. The Court declined to re-evaluate factual findings under its appellate jurisdiction, concluding that the High Court's reasoning was sound, and dismissed the appeal.
- Can the Supreme Court conduct a fresh factual inquiry in an appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the presumption of truth under Section 52 of the Land Revenue Act 1967 automatically validate a claim of gift when the gift itself is not proven?
- Is a party in possession of land required to disprove a claim of title when the claimant fails to establish the basis of their own title?
- Section 52, Land Revenue Act 1967
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The appellants impugn the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 7-2-2009, whereby a second appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below were set aside. As a consequence, the suit filed by the appellants for possession, mesne profits etc. Was dismissed. The facts of the case have been duly noted in the impugned judgment. The same, therefore, need not be reproduced in extenso.
2. The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs was that the respondents/defendants were trespassers and, therefore, could not question the gift claimed by the appellants from their father Abdul Aziz. He also cited law in support of this proposition.
' We, however, note that the argument being advanced is misconceived. The appellants/plaintiffs claimed to be donees of the land. In the impugned judgment, it has been held for cogent reasons that the appellants had failed to prove the gift. In these circumstances, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and the case-law referred by him become inapplicable. The title of the father of the petitioners is also based on certain entries in the revenue record and nothing more.
The presumption in favour of the petitioners, based on Section 52 of the Land Revenue Act has been adequately dealt with by the High Court as per discussion appearing at pages 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment. The High Court has rightly disbelieved the contention that the respondents- defendants had encroached upon the land in dispute.
3. We also note that the respondents admittedly are in possession of the land since long. They have produced credible documentary evidence including correspondence from the record of WAPDA etc. To controvert the averments made by the appellants in their plaint in respect of possession. It is not for this Court to embark upon a fresh factual inquiry in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, particularly when the reasoning in the impugned judgment is neither fanciful nor arbitrary. As a consequence, this appeal being without merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.