MAHMOOD BAKHSH And Others vs ALLAH BAKHSH
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing their Regular Second Appeal, which had upheld the reversal of the trial court's decree by the District Judge. The core legal question concerned whether the vendor, Shamsuddin, was insane at the time of executing the land sale in June 1962. The Supreme Court held that both the first appellate court and the High Court were fully justified in concluding that no sufficient proof of insanity at the relevant time was brought on record, noting that the medical evidence only indicated senile dementia in 1963, a year after the transaction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding mental capacity at the time of a transaction will not be interfered with unless unsupported by evidence.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the sanity of a vendor at the time of a sale transaction can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does medical evidence of senile dementia in 1963 suffice to prove insanity during a land sale executed in June 1962?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 10-10-1977, dismissing their Regular Second Appeal.
2. Shamsuddin sold some agricultural land to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.3,000 and a mutation (No. 680) regarding this sale was sanctioned on 20-6-1982. Subsequently Mahmood Bakhsh etc. (petitioners herein) filed a suit alleging that Shamsuddin never sold the land, nor had he received any consideration and the alleged sale and mutation regarding the sale had been obtained by the respondents by fraud. The suit was contested by the respondents. After framing issues and recording evidence the learned trial Court decreed the suit.
The respondents filed an appeal which was accepted by the District Judge, Multan vide order, dated 10-6-1967, and the judgment of the learned trial Court was reversed and the petitioners' suit was dismissed. Against this judgment the petitioners went up to the High Court in Second Appeal (No. 467 of 1967), which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
Hence the present petition.
3. The main question in the case was as to whether or not Shamsuddin was insane at the the of the sale made by him (i.e. On 20-6-1962).
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned judgments we feel that the learned first appellate Court and the High Court were justified in holding that no such proof had been brought on the record inasmuch as that the doctor who examined Shamsuddin had opined that he was suffering from senile dementia in 1963, while the sale was made by him earlier, in June 1962.
We do not consider it a proper case for interference by this Court. The petition is consequently dismissed.