FALAK SHER---Petitioner vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others---
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision filed by the petitioner regarding a property dispute. The petitioner claimed ownership of half of a piece of land based on an alleged agreement dated 17.12.1989, asserting that he had invested funds to make the land cultivable for the original allottee. Following the allottee's death, the petitioner alleged that the legal heirs agreed to transfer half the land to him. After failing in two successive rounds of litigation in civil courts and within the revenue hierarchy, the petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner across all lower fora. The Court held that title to immovable property cannot be claimed solely on the basis of an agreement. Finding no illegality or irregularity in the decisions of the lower courts, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings and dismissed the petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
- Can title to immovable property be claimed solely on the basis of an agreement?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts in the absence of illegality or irregularity?
- Is a second suit for declaration and consequential relief maintainable after the failure of a previous suit regarding the same property?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
ORDER
IJAZ UL AHSAN. J.---Leave to appeal is sought against a judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27.04.2012. Through the impugned judgment, a civil revision (C.R. No. 1383 of 2012) filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2.The claim of the petitioner arises out of an alleged agreement dated 17.12.1989. He alleges that a piece of land was allotted to Muhammad Hussain who on account of paucity of financial resources asked the petitioner help him make the land cultivable. The petitioner, claims to have spent substantial sums of money to improve the land. The said Muhammad Hussain subsequently died leaving behind a son named Muhammad Mansha who was a minor. The legal representatives of Muhammad Hussain, therefore, allegedly asked the petitioner to become owner to the extent of 1/2 of the land and an agreement in this regard was executed between the parties on 17.12.1989. The petitioner alleges that the Respondents subsequently resiled from the agreement which forced him to file a suit in the Civil Court to assert his right over the property in dispute. The same was dismissed and his appeal did not succeed either. Even in the revenue hierarchy he could not succeed. Later, he filed a second suit for declaration and consequential relief. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court dismissed the second suit as well which led to filing of a Civil Revision, which too met the same fate. Hence, this petition.
3.Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record, we find that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by three different Courts in two rounds of litigation against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has not succeeded in the revenue hierarchy. Even otherwise, it is settled law that title in immovable property cannot be claimed merely on the basis of an agreement and the alleged status of the petitioner vis--vis the property in dispute has been adjudicated upon unfavorably by the Civil Courts in two rounds of litigation as well as the revenue authorities. The declaration sought and the right asserted by the petitioner has no legal basis and all legal fora have recorded valid and cogent reasons for declining relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the lower fora. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 6 cases
- Farrukh Shahzad vs Maqbool Hussain Awan 2024 LHC 1879, 2025 PLJ Lahore 184
- Zahid Mahmood & another vs Sabir Hussain 2022 LHC 7034, 2025 MLD 271
- Zahid Mahmood Versus Sabir Hussain 2025 MLD 271
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs Fayaz & 2 others 2021 PHC 122
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus FAYAZ 2021 MLD 1410
- Mst. NASEEM ZEHRA and others vs GHAYAZ AHMED and others 2019 CLC 1925, 2019 PLJ Karachi 79