ALLAH DITTA Versus MARAYAM
This matter arises from two petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the concurrent findings of the Additional District Judge and the High Court, which held that the respondent had not sold her inherited share in agricultural land to her real brothers, the petitioners. The core legal questions for consideration were whether the respondent sold her share in the disputed land and whether the suits filed by the petitioners were barred by time. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the finding of the Additional District Judge regarding the non-establishment of the sales was fully justified by the evidence on record, and further held that the contention of limitation had little merit as there was no reliable evidence establishing the ouster of the respondent from the land. The key principles laid down are that findings of fact by lower appellate and revisional courts regarding the absence of a sale transaction based on evidence will not be interfered with, and limitation in suits involving co-sharers requires reliable evidence of ouster.
- Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that the sale of inherited agricultural land was not established can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction?
- Does a suit between co-sharers become time-barred in the absence of reliable evidence of ouster?
ORDER
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.- - In these two petitions for special leave to appeal, the main question for consideration is whether the respondent has sold her share which she had inherited in the agricultural land left by her father, in favour of the petitioners who were her real brothers. The trial Court answered the question in the affirmative but on appeal the learned Additional District Judge reappraised the evidence and held that the sales were not established. The High Court upheld the findings of the learned Additional District Judge in revisional jurisdiction. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we are of the view that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge was fully justified by the evidence on the record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the suits brought by the petitioners were barred by time. This contention has little merit as there is no reliable evidence of ouster of the respondent by the petitioners from the land in dispute. These petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed.
3. M.I./A-104/S Petitions dismissed.