HABIB KHAN vs Mst. HAFIZA BIBI And Other
This matter originated from a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order in a civil dispute concerning the ownership and possession of a three-marla plot of land in village Tatliali, District Gujranwala. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the land through an oral transaction from the respondents' predecessor-in-interest and asserted subsequent construction of a shop. Both the trial court and the District Judge concurrently found that the petitioner failed to establish the alleged sale or prove possession of the disputed property. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, declined to interfere with these factual findings, noting they were based on a sound appreciation of the evidence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the District Judge failed to record findings on all framed issues. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner failed to establish the foundational claim of ownership via the alleged sale, the omission to record findings on all issues did not warrant interference. The petition was dismissed, affirming that concurrent factual findings supported by evidence remain undisturbed in the absence of legal infirmity.
- Does the failure of a lower appellate court to record findings on all framed issues necessarily warrant interference by the Supreme Court when the primary claim of ownership has failed?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding an alleged oral sale when those findings are based on the appreciation of evidence?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--In this petition for special leave to appeal which arises out of a suit filed by the petitioner, the dispute between the parties relates to a piece of land, measuring 3 Marlas, situate in village Tatliali of District Gujranwala. The case of the petitioner was that Muhammad Hanif, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, had sold this land to him for Rs.2,000 by an. Oral transaction and that after purchasing the land he had constructed a shop on it. The trial Court as well as the District Judge found that the alleged sale in his favour had not been established and that he was not in possession of the land. The High Court in revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere with these findings as they were based on appreciation of the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that these findings suffer from any infirmity.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that at the trial a number of issues were framed but the District Judge did not record his findings thereon. This is indeed so but then as the petitioner was unable to establish the sale on which he rested his claim to ownership of the land in dispute we do not think that this is a fit case where we should interfere. This petition is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.