ALLAH BAKHSH Versus BAKHSHA
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the validity of a General Power of Attorney and a subsequent sale deed. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, alleging that the Power of Attorney was forged and fraudulent, thereby rendering the subsequent sale of the suit land void. The trial court dismissed the suit, and both the appellate court and the High Court affirmed these findings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of the Power of Attorney and the failure of the plaintiff to discharge the burden of proof warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact were unassailable as the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof regarding the non-execution of the documents. The Court established the principle that it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact where the petitioner fails to demonstrate a substantial question of law of public importance.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a plaintiff alleges the non-execution of a General Power of Attorney?
- Is a failure to produce an original document fatal to a case when the execution of that document has been challenged?
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.-- -The petitioners seek the grant of leave to appeal from judgment, dated 7-1-2002 passed by. the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.427/D of 1991.
2. Briefly stated, the- facts of the case are that late Mughla, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against respondent No. 1 that he was the owner in. possession of the suit-land and the General Power of Attorney purported to have been executed by him in favour of respondent No. 1 was forged, fictitious, collusive obtained by fraud and the same was liable to be cancelled. He further sought a declaration that the subsequent sale-deed, dated 5-8-1979 for the sale of the suit-land, on the strength of the General Power of Attorney, in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 5 was also void, fictitious, without consideration and ineffective qua his rights.
3. The trial Court framed as many as 7 issues in the civil suit. By judgment, dated 16-4-1986 the civil suit of Mughla deceased was dismissed by Civil Judge, Samundri. The appeal and civil revision of the petitioners were also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide judgments, dated 12-2-1991 and 7-1-2002 respectively.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the plaintiff late Mughla was an old aged person against whom the respondents had committed a fraud. The respondents failed to produce the original General Power of Attorney, dated 5-7-1979 in the Court despite the fact that its execution had been denied by the plaintiff.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. All the Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the Power of Attorney, dated 5-7-1979 was duly executed by late Mughla in favour of respondent No. 1. The onus of proof of Issue No. 5 in respect of the non-execution of General Power of Attorney and subsequent registered sale-deed, dated 5-8-1979 placed on the plaintiff was not discharged by him. No effort was ever made by late Mughla to cause the production of the original Power of. Attorney nor did he take any objection in this regard. In these circumstances no exception can be taken to the findings of fact recorded by all the Courts. This case does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance so as to warrant any interference by this Court.
6. This petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
M.H./A-266/S Petition dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Syed Pervaiz Hussain and another vs Zikr-ur-Rehman and others 2024 SCP 241, 2024 SCMR 1683
- Mst. Saman Naseer vs Additional District Judge, Lahore etc 2020 LHC 47, 2020 CLC 549, 2020 PLJ Lahore 111