VICTOR (DECEASED) and others vs DAVID (DECEASED) and others
This civil petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment dismissing a civil revision against concurrent findings of lower courts in a suit for declaration regarding inheritance of agricultural land. The core legal question concerns whether the disputed land was originally allotted to the male predecessor Sawan or to his widow Mst. Nihali, determining the lawful heirs entitled to the property. The Supreme Court held that final, unchallenged revenue orders dating back to 1957 and 1959 conclusively established that Sawan was the original allottee, superseding earlier contradictory revenue entries. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court, holding that the lower forums properly appreciated the evidence, and consequently dismissed the petition as the petitioners failed to demonstrate any illegality, jurisdictional defect, or misreading of evidence.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Do final and unchallenged revenue orders establishing the identity of an original allottee supersede prior conflicting entries?
- Whether the termination of a limited estate opens inheritance to the collaterals of the original allottee?
' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14-11-2008, whereby Civil Revision bearing No,1800 of 1999, filed by the present petitioners, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are that respondents Nos,1 to 12, filed a suit for declaration against the petitioners and other respondents, contending therein that the property in dispute was originally allotted to one Sawan on whose death the land was mutated in favour of his widow Mst. Nihali and his daughter Mst. Karmoon, in equal shares by way of a limited estate. It was further contended that Mst. Nihali remarried and a daughter Mst. Kisso was born. And upon the death of Mst. Nihali in 1951, the limited estate came to an end whereupon the respondents Nos,1 to 12 claimed to have inherited the land in dispute and contended that they i,e, respondents Nos,1 to 12 were in possession thereof. The suit was resisted by the present petitioners, who took up the plea that the land was never allotted to Sawan but was allotted to Mst. Nihali in the year 1900.
Half of the said land was transferred in the name of Mst. Karmon daughter of Sawan. Mst. Nihali filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Multan, who directed the name of Mst. Karmon be deleted and Mst. Nihali was held to be the owner of the entire land in dispute. It was further contended that upon the death of Mst. Nihali, her daughter Mst. Kisso inherited the property, as a sole heir and the petitioners are successor-ininterest of the said Mst. Kisso, hence, entitled to the land in question. On the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, evidence was led.
The trial Court seized of the matter vide judgment dated 16-7-1996, decreed the suit.
3. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal, which failed to find favour, and was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13-9-1999.
4. The petitioners, thereafter, filed a Revision Petition before the Lahore High Court i,e, Civil Revision No,1800 of 1999, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 14-11-2008.
5. Heard.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Sawan was not the original allottee of the land and in fact Mst. Nihali and Mst. Karmon were the original allottees, as is evident from the Khatooni (Exhibit D-1), which document has not been duly appreciated by the Courts below.
7. The real matter in controversy between the parties is that whether Sawan was the original allottee or Nihali? Perusal of the evidence on record reveals that upon the death of Nihali a mutation of inheritance was recorded in favour of the colaterals of Sawan. Mst. Kisso from whom the petitioners claim title filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Collector, Lyallpur and the case was remanded. In post remand proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner, held that Mst. Nihali was the original tenant and recommended that Mst. Kisso be nominated, which decision was appealed against and decided by the Collector vide Order dated 2-1-1957, wherein it was held that Sawan was the original allottee. The said Order is available as Exhibit P-5. Mst. Kisso filed an appeal against the Order dated 2-1-1957, referred to above, which'was dismissed by the Commissioner concerned vide Order dated 13-11-1959, which is available on the record as Exhibit P-6. It is an admitted fact and not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Orders dated 2- 1-1957 (Exhibit P-5) and dated 13-11-1959 (Exhibit P-6), were never challenged, hence, the same attained finality. The orders Exhibits P-5 and P-6 are subsequent to Exhibit D-1, which therefore stands superseded. It is in the above backdrop, upon the aforesaid evidence that the trial Court returned the findings that Sawan was the original allottee. B and not Mst. Nihali, hence, respondents Nos,1 to 12 were entitled to the land and not the petitioners, who claimed title through Mst. Kisso daughter of Mst. Nihali from a subsequent marriage. The said findings have been affirmed in the appeal. The concurrent findings were maintained by the learned High Court by way of the impugned judgment dated 14-11-2008. The findings are based on a fair appraisal of the evidence and the law. No illegality, jurisdictional defect, or misreading and non-reading of evidence, has been pointed out at the bar, warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, this petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed and leave declined.