AMIR And Others vs MAHLLA
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition against an appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha. The lower appellate court had affirmed a trial court decree ordering the petitioners to surrender possession of certain Kothas (structures) to the respondent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the respondent's ownership of the land upon which the Kothas were constructed, and the subsequent entitlement to possession, warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court held that the respondent had successfully established ownership of the land, and the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were sound. Finding no legal error or sufficient grounds to disturb these factual determinations, the Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless a compelling legal ground or misappreciation of evidence is demonstrated.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land ownership in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a landowner entitled to the possession of structures built upon their land when ownership is established?
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 4-7-1984 whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, who had affirmed a decree passed by the Civil Judge, Sargodha, whereby the possession of certain Kothas which were in occupation of the petitioners was ordered to be delivered to the respondent, on the finding that he was the owner of the land over which the said Kothas were constructed and was, therefore, entitled to their possession.
2. The Courts below have held that the respondent had succeeded in satisfactorily establishing that he was the owner of the land over which the Kothas, presently in occupation of the petitioners, were constructed. This finding of fact has been maintained by all the learned Courts below and no good ground has been shown for interfering with this finding of fact recorded concurrently by all the learned Courts. The other pleas raised regarding the maintainability of the respondent's suit etc. Were also rightly found to be without substance.
3.The upshot is that petition fails and is dismissed hereby.