MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs The DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision petition filed by the petitioner. The underlying litigation originated from a suit for declaration of ownership based on adverse possession, wherein the petitioner inconsistently claimed to have purchased the disputed property. The respondent contested the claim, asserting that the petitioner was merely a tenant and that the suit was a retaliatory measure against pending ejectment proceedings. The trial court decided the issue of adverse possession against the petitioner and dismissed the suit, a decision subsequently upheld by the District Judge in appeal. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision application on the grounds that the contentions raised involved findings of fact, which were not amenable to interference under revisional jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that the controversy pertained strictly to questions of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that no grounds existed for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Can findings of fact be challenged in revisional jurisdiction?
- Is a suit for declaration of ownership based on adverse possession maintainable when the plaintiff also claims title through purchase?
ORDER
1. ' S. A. NUSRAT, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is from the judgment dated 12-1-1983 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No, 758-D of 1982.
2. ' The proceedings culminating in the judgment of the High Court were initiated by the petitioner through a suit in which declaration was sought by him to the effect that he had become owner of the disputed property by virtue of adverse possession. It was also averred inconsistently that the petitioner had purchased the property in suit in 1961 for a consideration of Rs, 5,000, from one Fazal Din. The respondent contested the suit and pleaded that the petitioner was a tenant under him and that the suit in question was filed as a counterblast to the ejectment proceedings already initiated by him against the petitioner.
3. ' On the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed but the contest was confined to one issue with regard to adverse possession of the disputed property as claimed by the petitioner. The said issue was decided against the Petitioner and the suit was dismissed on 21-5.1980. The petitioner's appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the learned District Judge on 15-3-1981. The petitioner thereupon filed an application for revision in the High Court challenging the propriety of the appellate judgment of the learned Additional District Judge which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
4. ' The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were duly considered by the learned High Court and it was held that the same related to findings of fact which could not be gone into in revisional jurisdiction.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and undoubtedly the controversy involved in the case relates to questions of fact which were rightly found by the learned High Court to be outside the purview of revisional jurisdiction.
6. ' In the circumstances, no interference is called for. The petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly.