GHULAM DASTGIR And Others vs HIDAYAT And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding concurrent findings of fact regarding the succession to the tenancy of a State land originally allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The respondents filed a declaratory suit claiming a one-third share in the suit land as heirs of the deceased original tenant, which was decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court and the High Court in civil revision. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the respondents to succession as heirs of the original propositus. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were unexceptionable and declined to interfere, thereby dismissing the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not normally interfere with concurrent findings of fact on matters of succession unless a compelling justification is made out.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding succession to a tenancy?
- Does a civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 lie against concurrent decrees on a question of fact?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The dispute in this petition relates to the succession of one Muhammad alias Haji Muhammad deceased as original tenant of a State land allotted by the Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 who had died somewhere in 1946 leaving behind sons and grandsons. The respondents brought a declaratory suit against the petitioners seeking relief to the effect that they may be declared owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the tenancy comprised of the suit land as heirs of Muhammad alias Haji Muhammad, a propositus. The suit was decided after hot contest on the basis of evidence and decreed by the learned Civil Judge First Class, Chishtian by his judgment, dated 30-7-1978. The petitioners unsuccessfully appealed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court before the Additional District Judge and latter before the High Court through a Civil Revision under section 115, C.P.C. The last order was passed by the Lahore High Court, on .14-6-1980 and is the subject-matter of this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The decision on the issue of succession stands concluded by the concurrent findings of fact given by the learned two Courts below. The learned High Court had examined the issue and found no justification for interference.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and having gone through the record of the case, we are not persuaded to differ from the opinion of the learned Courts below as well as the refusal by the High Court to, interfere with in the matter. This petition deserves to be dismissed which we hereby do.