Mst. HUMNA BIBI AND OTHERS vs NIAZ GUL AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a property dispute concerning land originally held by Adam Khan, whose four sons were recorded as joint owners in the 1901-1902 Jamabandi. In a subsequent revenue settlement, the name of one son, Allah Khan, was omitted, prompting his heirs to file a civil suit for a declaration of ownership in 1976. The trial court decreed the suit, and the lower appellate court dismissed the petitioners' appeal, holding that the land devolved upon all four sons and no alienation by Allah Khan was proven. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' subsequent revision petition in limine, declining to re-appreciate the evidence. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the background of the case and held that the High Court's refusal to interfere with concurrent factual findings in revisional jurisdiction was justified. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that revisional courts will not undertake a re-appreciation of evidence where no misreading of evidence is established, and consequently dismissed the petition.
- Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence in revisional jurisdiction when no misreading of evidence is pointed out?
- Does the omission of a co-owner's name in a subsequent revenue settlement extinguish his inheritance rights without proof of alienation?
ORDER
' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The dispute relates to share in the property originally held by Adam Khan.
According to the second Revenue Settlement and the Jamabandi for the year 1901-1902 the property was owned jointly by the four sons of Adam Khan, namely, Nasar Khan, Muhammad Khan and Mian Khan the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, and Allah Khan, predecessor-in- interest of the respondents. However, in the third Revenue Settlement, the name of Allah Khan did not appear. The heirs of Allah Khan brought a suit on 21-7-1976 for a declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of land measuring 408 Kanals and 13 Marlas. The suit was decreed on 29-10-1980, against which the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Attock on 5-3-1982. The appellate Court held that the entire land belonging to Adam Khan devolved upon his sons as shown in the pedigree-table and that, therefore, the respondents being the descendants of Allah Khan, a son of Adam Khan, are entitled to get 1/4th share out of the land. The appellate Court noted that no mutation had been placed on record to show that Allah Khan had alienated his share to his other brothers and concluded that the land had continued to be in the joint Khata and the parties were in possession to the extent of their shares.
2. The petitioners then came to the High Court in revision and pressed their case on the ground of misreading of evidence but as they failed to point out any misreading and all they wanted was a re-appreciation of the evidence, the High Court declined to undertake the exercise in the revisional jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed the revision in limine.
3. In the background of the case and after hearing learned counsel, we do not find the order of the High Court open to exception. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD HAROON Versus RAZIA BEGUM 2001 CLC 810
- OMAR vs SANJAR (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS) 1984 CLC 2675