NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs TAJAMAL HUSSAIN
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the limitation period for a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the suit, filed on 14-10-1969, was time-barred, given the vendee's contention that physical possession of the land had been taken prior to the attestation of the sale mutation on 14-10-1968. The trial and appellate courts examined the evidence, and the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, concluded that the vendee failed to prove that physical possession was obtained before the attestation of the mutation. This factual finding was subsequently upheld by the High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner sought to challenge a concurrent finding of fact without demonstrating any misreading or non-reading of the relevant oral or documentary evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the limitation issue. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact, absent any misreading of evidence, are generally not subject to interference in appellate jurisdiction.
- Can a finding of fact regarding the date of physical possession be challenged in the Supreme Court if there is no misreading of evidence?
- Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commence from the date of attestation of the mutation or the date of taking physical possession?
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The questioninvolved in this case is whether the suit for Pre-emptor filed by the pre-emptor was withinlimitation?
2. The sale, which was pre-empted, was attested on 14-10-1968 and the suit to pre-empt the sale was filed on 14-10-1969 within the prescribed period of one year. However, the plea of the vendee was that although the sale was attested on 14-10-1968 the mutation was entered on 20-7-1968 and the actual physical possession passed to him much before 14-10-1968 and since he (the vendee) had taken physical possession of the land under the sale before 14-10-1968 the suit filed on 14-10- 1969 was barred by time. This aspect of the case was considered by the appellate Court, namely, Additional District Judge, Gujrat and he after going through the evidence, both oral as well as documentary, held as follows:-- "The vendee had failed to prove that he had taken possession of the suit land prior to, the attesation mutation (Exh.P.2)."
3. The above finding of the learned Additional District Judge has been upheld by the High Court.
4.Sh. Ghias Muhammad learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition for leave to appeal has prayed for reconsideration of the above finding.
5. We observe that the finding being assailed before us relates to a question of fact and that it has not been shown that this finding is based on any misreading or non reading of the relevant evidence.
6. There is no force in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.