Haji FAIZUL HAQUE KHAN vs Syedabdul HAMID AND Another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had interfered with the decision of the Additional Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of a disputed property. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court misread or failed to read the evidence on record, specifically concerning a receipt produced to establish entitlement via an NCS form without supporting registry entries or proceedings, and whether possession was lawfully taken in 1960. The Supreme Court held that the case warranted further examination, particularly in light of contentions regarding the sufficiency of the receipt as proof and the circumstances of possession. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal subject to furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 1,000. The key principle laid down is that where an appellate court or superior court allegedly ignores plain evidence or relies on uncorroborated single documents such as receipts without supporting official records, the matter merits a full review by the apex court.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does a bare receipt purporting to show the submission of an NCS form, without supporting entries in registers or proceedings, constitute sufficient proof of entitlement to the transfer of property?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when an impugned order ignores plain evidence regarding the manner and timing of taking possession of disputed property?
1. CORNELIUS, C. J.-It is urged that the High Court has interfered with the order of the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner, on misreading anti non Treading of the evidence. The case of the respondent Syed Abdul Hamid of being entitled to transfer of the disputed property is said to be based on nothing chore than a receipt produced which purports to show that he had put in a NCS form. There was no support from any other documents, e. g., entries in registers or proceedings on the form. It is urged that by itself this receipt proved nothing.
2. Moreover, the High Court had ignored the plain evidence that Syed Abdul Hamid only took possession of the disputed property in 1960, from one Raz Mohammad whom the petitioner was then trying to evict, by proper proceedings.
3. We consider that this case requires further examination and we grant leave to appeal as prayed.
4. Security Rs. 1,000.