ATA ULLAH KHAN AND Another vs Mst. GHULAM ZOHRAN AND Another
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision and upheld the grant of a temporary injunction to the respondents by the District Judge. The underlying dispute involves a declaratory suit filed by the respondents challenging a registered sale deed executed in favor of the petitioners concerning landed property inherited from their late father, alleging the deed to be fictitious, forged, and without consideration. The core legal question concerns whether observations made by appellate courts regarding joint possession while granting a temporary injunction constitute a final determination of the suit's merits. The Supreme Court held that findings rendered at the interlocutory stage regarding a prima facie case do not constitute a final adjudication of the issues, which must be determined by the trial court after recording full evidence. The key principle laid down is that observations made for assessing a prima facie case in temporary injunction matters do not prejudice or finally determine the substantive rights of the parties.
- Does an observation regarding joint possession made while deciding a temporary injunction application constitute a final determination of the suit?
- Can findings given at the interlocutory stage prejudice the trial court's evaluation of evidence on merits?
ORDER
1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 311 of 1969, dated the 5th March 1970. By this order the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed with costs.
2. The petitioners and the respondents are the sons/daughters of late Ahmad Hassan, a Zamindar of Mauza Sehar, Tehsil Mailsi in the Multan District. After the death of their father, the landed property owned by the deceased in the said district devolved on the heirs in accordance with Shariat Law and mutation was sanctioned in due course of time. Subsequently, it is alleged that the respondents sold away their share of the landed property to the petitioners for consideration of Rs.
3. 70,000 under a registered sale deed dated the 30th April 1966, and a sum of Rs. 69,000 was paid to them in the presence of Sub-Registrar, Multan.
4. Respondents challenged this sale in suit for declaration filed on the 22nd July 1967, at Multan on the allegation that the registered sale deed was fictitious, without consideration and forged one. They sought a declaration that the deed was void and inoperative and prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from being shown as the owners of the suit land. Along with the suit, respondents also applied for temporary injunction. It was prayed that the petitioners be restrained from alienating the land in dispute. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the 20th of November 1968. In appeal, the District Judge, Multan, by order dated the 29th April 1969 granted the respondents temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. The learned District Judge held that the respondents were in joint possession and the same should not be interfered with. It was in these circumstances that the petitioners took the matter in revision before the High Court. The High Court has upheld the order of the learned District Judge and dismissed the revision. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
5. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the learned District Judge by holding that the respondents are in join possession of the property in dispute has finally decided the suit between the parties. The apprehension of the petitioners is not well founded. The High Court has already observed that the question will be decided by the trial Court after recording the entire evidence in the case. In this connection the High Court observed as under :- "The observations made in this regard have to be understood in relation to the assessment of the learned District Judge as to whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie case and the observa--tions made in this connection cannot be understood as finally determining the question of possession, which matter has still to be decided by the learned trial Judge after recording the entire evidence in the case."