MUHAMMAD AKBAR AND OTHERS vs NASAR JAMA SHAH AND OTHERS
This matter originated from a pre-emption suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants regarding the sale of land, which was initially decreed. Subsequently, the heirs of the alleged vendor filed a separate suit for a declaration that the sale was fictitious, fraudulent, and without consideration, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the District Judge. The pre-emptor's revision petition was dismissed by the High Court, which held that concurrent findings of fact regarding the invalidity of the sale were not open to interference under revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to re-examine these concurrent findings of fact. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court determined that the case was not a fit or proper matter for the grant of leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court rescinded the order granting leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the finality of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts?
- Is a concurrent finding of fact regarding the validity of a sale open to challenge in revisional jurisdiction?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-Muhammad Azim, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed a suit to pre-empt the.. Sale of the land measuring 2 kanals 5 marlas allegedly made by Mst. Begum Jan wife of Muzzaffar Shah in favour of Mukhtar Din, which suit was decreed.
2. ' The heirs of Mst. Begum Jan, who had, in the meanwhile died, brought a suit against the alleged vendees and the pre-emptor for declaration that the sale of Mst. Begum Jan of the land was fictitious, fraudulent and without consideration and, therefore, ineffective as against the vendor and after her death, her heirs the plaintiffs. The suit was contested by Muhammad Azim (the pre- emptor). The learned trial Court decreed the suit on the finding that there was no valid sale by Mst.
3. Begum Jan. On appeal by Muhammad Azim, the decree of the learned trial Court was maintained by the learned District Judge, against which a revision was taken by Muhammad Azim before the High Court, which was dismissed by it in limine vide order dated 16-4-1964. The learned Single Judge opined that the fact that there was no valid sale by Mst. Begum Jan in favour of Mukhtar Din stood concluded by a concurrent finding of fact and this was not open in revision under section 115, C. P. C.
4. ' The pre-emptor having died in the meantime, his heirs filed a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 16-4-1964 and leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide its order, dated 6-2-1975 to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to question, in revisional jurisdiction, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below.
5. ' The appeal has now come up for hearing before us.
6. ' After having heard the learned counsel for the parties we consider that this was not a fit and proper case wherein leave to appeal could or should have been granted. We would, accordingly, rescind the order dated 6-2-1975 granting leave to appeal, with the result that the petition shall stand dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Haji RAIS AHMED vs ASLAM 1991 CLC 602