SHER ALI vs Mst. KALSOOM BEGUM and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition challenging concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts regarding the validity of a sale deed. The respondent, a widow, had filed a civil suit challenging a sale deed of her property to the petitioner, alleging fraud, lack of consideration, and non-execution. Both the trial court and the district judge, upon re-examining the evidence, concluded that the sale deed was fraudulent, lacked consideration, and was not executed by the respondent. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision, finding no misreading of evidence or legal defect. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the lower courts failed to properly weigh the presumption of validity attached to a registered deed and misconstrued evidence regarding rent. The Supreme Court held that the case turned on concurrent findings of fact, which were supported by evidence. Finding no misreading of evidence or misapplication of law, the Court affirmed that it would not interfere with such concurrent findings in its appellate jurisdiction, and consequently refused leave to appeal.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading of evidence or misapplication of law?
- Does a registered sale deed create an irrebuttable presumption of validity when challenged on grounds of fraud and lack of consideration?
- Is a revision petition maintainable against concurrent findings of fact where no misreading of evidence is demonstrated?
ORDER
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioner, an unsuccessful defendant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 12-12-1981 whereby a revision petition filed by him challenging the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two subordinate Courts, was dismissed.
2. ' In the year 1969, the petitioner was employed in the Jail Department and was posted in Faisalabad. He had obtained on rent a quarter attached to a bungalow owned and occupied by Mst. Kalsoom Begum a widow, the plaintiff-respondent. On 3rd of June, 1969 a sale-deed was said to have been executed and got registered by the respondent No,1 whereby she was shown to have sold the said quarter to the petitioner for a sum of Rs,2,000. On 3rd of September, 1970 she instituted a Civil suit challenging the sale on the ground that she had not executed the sale-deed, that it was fraudulent, invalid, illegal and without consideration and ineffective on her rights. The suit was contested; a number of issues were framed and on the material issue, the trial Court held that the sale-deed was not executed by the plaintiff-respondent; that it was fraudulent and without consideration.
3. ' On appeal, the District Judge re-examined the entire evidence and held as follows:- "All the facts and circumstances brought on the record prove beyond doubt that the sale was without consideration and the signatures of respondent No,1 were obtained on Exh.P.4 by misrepresentation of facts and he actually did not sell the property. The finding of lower Court on issue No,6 is correct and it is maintained."
4. ' The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine with the following observations:- "No misreading of evidence was, however, indicated by the learned counsel. He also did not point out any other defect justifying interference with concurrent finding of the learned lower Court on the question of fact, namely, whether the sale in dispute was obtained fraudulently and was without consideration. It is, therefore, not possible for me to disturb that finding."
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff-respondent was literate, a social worker and competent to deal with the property and to manage it. In view of the marriage of her nephew with a daughter of the petitioner, she had sold this quarter to the petitioner and another to her nephew Azim. She had challenged both the alienations, succeeded in the case of the petitioner but not so in the case of her nephew Azim. It is stated that the letter written to the son wherein rent of the property was mentioned has been misread because it was not rent, which was rent of the quarter which was in dispute but the charges for electricity. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that oral evidence led by the plaintiff was insufficient by all standards to dislodge the presumptions arising out of a duly registered deed which had the seal and the sanction of the registrar.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, and find that it was primarily a question of fact which was agitated in all the Courts. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has discussed the entire evidence and has recorded the finding of fact. There was no case of misreading of evidence or misapplication of law. In such a situation even though a different view on the same evidence may be possible it will not make out a case for interference in revision powers of the High Court or for further examination in this Court. Hence leave to appeal is refused.