KHAN REHMAN MIAN vs TOR LALI BACHA
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, including the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's revision application and held that the respondent's pre-emption suit was within time. The core legal question concerned the determination of the starting point of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit where the sale of land was effected through an unregistered document and not recorded in the register of mutations, specifically invoking section 31(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, which links limitation to the date of taking physical possession. The Supreme Court held that all three courts below correctly appreciated the evidence, including the petitioner's own statement, in concluding that actual physical possession was taken four to five months after the sale transaction rather than on the date of the execution of the sale-deed. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence will not be interfered with.
- What is the starting point of limitation for a pre-emption suit under section 31(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, when the sale is made through an unregistered document not recorded in the register of mutations?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the date of taking physical possession of suit land based on the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts?
- Section 31(1), N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-Facts of this case briefly stated are that on 2s2-1979 respondent filed a pre-emption suit against the petitioner in respect of suit land. Petition in defence, inter alia, pleaded that the suit was time-barred as he had purchased the land on 20-1-1978. Since the sale was by an unregistered document and was not recorded in the register of mutations, the crucial date for the start of the period of limita--petition, in view of the provisions of section 31(1) of the N.- W. F. P. Pre-emption Act., 1950, was the date on which petitioner took, under the sale, physical possession of the land.
2. The trial Judge on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, in particular on petitioner's own statement that he took actual possession of land 4/5 months after the sale transaction, held that the suit was not time---barred. This view was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Malakand and he dismissed petitioner's appeal, and finally a learned Single Judge of Peshawar High Court on re-appraisal of the evidence also confirmed this view, and dismissed petitioner's revision application.
3. Mr. Muhammad Bilal learned counsel appearing in support of this peti--petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court submits that due weight has not been given to the evidence produced by the petitioner that he took possession of the suit land on 20-1-1978 when the sale- deed was executed as per contents of that document itself.
4. After having gone through the-record of the case it the light of the argu--ments addressed by the learned counsel, we find no scope for interference by this Court, for, all the three courts below have held on correct appreciation of evidence produced by the parties that petitioner took possession of the suit land 4 or 5 months after the execution of the; sale-deed.