MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus NAWAB
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, which declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with the judgment of the Additional District Judge. The property dispute involves rival registered sale-deeds executed by the same owner, Mst. Irshad Begum, selling shares of land in village Pindi Gheb, District Attock to the petitioner and the respondent respectively. The core legal question concerns whether the land sold to the respondent formed part of the land previously transferred to the petitioner. The trial court answered in the affirmative, but the Additional District Judge took a contrary view, which the High Court upheld. The Supreme Court held that no case was made out for interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction with the factual findings of the lower appellate court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent or appellate findings on land identification in revision do not warrant Supreme Court interference without jurisdictional error.
- Whether the High Court can interfere in revisional jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding the identification of land sold through registered deeds?
- Does a petition against concurrent or appellate findings on land demarcation warrant interference by the Supreme Court when no jurisdictional defect is shown?
ORDER
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑Mst. Irshad Begum was owner of 35/14336 share in Khata No.249/2460 in village Pindi Gheb District Attock. By a registered deed dated 25‑1‑1984, she sold 6 marlas out of her share to the petitioner. Similarly, by another registered sale‑deed dated 4‑2‑1984, she sold another 4 marlas in favour of the respondent. The question for consideration in this petition is whether the land sold by her to the respondent was a part of the land transferred to the petitioner. The trial Court answered this question in the affirmative but on appeal by the respondent, the Additional District Judge, Attock, took a contrary view. In revision the High Court declined to interfere with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not satisfied that any case for interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge was made out. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
3. M.I.IM‑521/S ‑ Petition dismissed.