Mst. TOORA And Others vs TAJ MUHAMMAD And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute concerning the identity and area of property No. 25/C, where the petitioners challenged the evidentiary value of a Local Commissioner's report and the jurisdiction of the civil court to question a declaration made by the Assistant Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the appellate court could rely on a Local Commissioner's report and spot evidence to determine the identity and ownership of the disputed site, and whether such a determination of fact could be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Additional District Judge was fully justified in appointing a Commissioner to ascertain the identity of the disputed site. After considering the report, the spot evidence, and the existing record, the appellate court properly concluded that the plaintiff was the valid transferee of the suit land on the basis of a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD). The Court ruled that this determination of fact had attained finality and was unexceptionable in revisional jurisdiction, thereby dismissing the petition.
- Is an appellate court justified in appointing a Local Commissioner to ascertain the physical identity and boundaries of a disputed property?
- Can a finding of fact regarding property ownership based on a Local Commissioner's report and a Permanent Transfer Deed be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction?
- Does a determination of fact by an appellate court regarding the identity of a transferred site attain finality if supported by spot evidence and the record?
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--Leave is sought on the ground that the Local Commissioner's report puts the area of the property in dispute No.25/C at 868 sq- ft- and this categorical statement cannot be countermanded by the calculations given in the Scheme Exh.C.W.l/2. Further, the statement of the Commissioner in Court wherein he endeavoured to show that a further area of 401 sq. Ft was part of property No.25/C totally destroys the evidentiary value of all the exercise the learned Appellate Court could not abdicate its functions in favour of the Local Commissioner regarding the title of the disputed site; that the declaration of the Assistant Commissioner was final and could not be called in question by a civil Court. The admission of the plaintiff /respondent himself as in his application Exh.P.W.l/D.1 was sufficient to give a lie to his claim that the plot declared by the Assistant Commissioner was a part of, his House No.25/C.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and various orders on the record. The learned Additional District Judge, considering the facts, was justified in appointing Commissioner for ascertaining the identity of the site in dispute and thereafter considering the report and the evidence recorded by the Commissioner on the spot and in the light of the evidence already available on the file came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was transferee of the suit land on the basis of a valid transfer made in his favor and P.T.D. Issued. This question of fact determined by the learned, Additional District Judge has attained finality and is considered as unexceptional in revisional jurisdiction by the learned High Court Judge. Thus, we find no merit in this petition which is consequently dismissed.