MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs TkiE DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision against the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The petitioner had initiated a suit seeking a declaration of ownership of the disputed property based on adverse possession, while simultaneously and inconsistently claiming to have purchased the property. The trial court dismissed the suit after deciding the issue of adverse possession against the petitioner, and the lower appellate court affirmed this decision. The core legal question before the High Court and the Supreme Court was whether findings of fact regarding adverse possession could be re-examined in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below were rightly found by the High Court to be outside the purview of revisional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that pure questions of fact and concurrent factual determinations cannot be disturbed by a revisional court.
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding adverse possession be challenged in revisional jurisdiction?
- Whether a revisional court can interfere with findings of fact determined by the courts below?
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.