A BD UR R A SHID Versus Mirza KAFAIT BAIG
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits. The petitioner claimed ownership of a property based on a transfer order (P.T.O.) issued to his predecessor-in-interest, Khadim Hussain, and a subsequent sale deed. The respondent contested this claim, asserting ownership through a different transferee. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, found the petitioner's P.T.O. to be a forged document, citing unexplained discrepancies in the issuance dates, inconsistencies between the property records and the transfer documents, and the failure to produce the original transferee as a witness. The suit was dismissed, and subsequent appeals were rejected. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal in limine. The Court held that the dismissal was justified as no valid grounds under the relevant procedural law were established. Furthermore, the Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, emphasizing that the case's outcome rested on factual determinations regarding the authenticity of the transfer documents.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts?
- Is a High Court justified in dismissing a second appeal in limine if no valid grounds under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are established?
- Does the failure to produce a key witness to prove the genuineness of a disputed transfer document justify the dismissal of a suit for possession?
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
M.S.H.
QURAISHI, J.-- The dispute relates to house bearing No,B.II-21-S-1/ situate in Machine Mohalla No,3, Jhelum. According to the petitioner it had been first transferred in favour of Khadim Hussain as a building site by P.T.O. No,122441, dated 11-10-1966 and P.T.D. Dated 18-11-1972, on which site the said transferee had constructed a house after having its plans approved by the municipality. The petitioner purchased the property from Khadim Hussain by a sale-deed registered on 25-11-1974. He sought ejectment of the respondent under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, but his application failed on 15-9-1975, upon a finding adverse to him on the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. His appeal too having failed, he took recourse to civil action by bringing a suit on 31-5-1977 for possession and recovery of Rs,3,600 for the use and occupation of the house for a period of three years prior to the institution of the suit. The respondent/defendant controverted the assertion and himself claimed to be owner of the property having purchased it from its real transferee, one Karim Ullah. Upon a consideration of the evidence produced by the parties, the civil Court found that P.T.O. No,122441 which was said to have been issued in favour of Khadim Hussain in 1966 from the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhelum, had actually been remitted from Lahore to Jhelum in 1968, for which discrepancy there was no explanation, that the P.T.O. Had been ante-dated, that according to the petitioner's own admission the property had been entered as a house in the Rehabilitation records although the P.T.O. Issued in favour of Khadim Hussain showed it to be a building site and that the relevant register in which the sanction of building plans was entered was not traceable in the office of the municipality. The trial Court also noted that the petitioner had failed to produce Khadim Hussain to explain many gaps in the transfer and lastly held that the P.T.O. Issued in his favour was "a forged document". The suit was accordingly dismissed against which the petitioner's appeal before the District Judge, Jhelum, and second appeal in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, having failed, he has moved this Court for leave to appeal.
2.Learned counsel took objection to the short order by which the second appeal has been dismissed by the High Court in limine. But we see no merit in the objection because the appeal being at admission stage and no ground as required by section 100, C.P.C. Having been properly made out, the appeal could not be admitted. The basic document, which is the transfer order made in favour of Khadim Hussain was not produced at any stage nor was he examined to prove the genuineness of the transfer said to have been made in his favour. The property also bears a different number than that of the plot shown in Khadim Hussain's P.T.D. Which discrepancy, too, was not explained. Even otherwise, we are satisfied that the fate of the case hinges on findings of fact and as such there is no scope for interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed.