Mst. REHMAT BIBI vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD And Other
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed the findings of the Additional District Judge regarding a disputed question of fact: whether the petitioner was married in 1936. The trial court had initially affirmed the marriage, but the Additional District Judge reversed this finding. Upon second appeal, the High Court reappraised the evidence, overturned the appellate court's decision, and restored the trial court's original finding. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the authority to reverse a finding of fact during a second appeal. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court generally cannot interfere with factual findings in second appeals, it is competent to do so when the lower appellate court has failed to give due weight to critical evidence, such as a mutation record, or has ignored significant circumstances bearing on the issue. In this case, the petitioner's failure to challenge a 1936 mutation for twenty-five years justified the High Court's intervention. The petition was dismissed as meritless.
- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact in a second appeal?
- Under what circumstances is a High Court justified in reversing a finding of fact made by an appellate court in a second appeal?
- Does the failure to challenge a mutation for a significant period of time constitute a relevant circumstance for determining a disputed fact?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- This petition for special leave to appeal is from the judgment and decree dated 2-8-1986 of the Lahore High Court which reversed the judgment and decree dated 12-1-1966 of the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and restored those of the trial Court.
2.The only question for consideration before the Courts was one of fact, that is, whether the petitioner had been married in 1936 or not. The learned trial Court decided this question in the affirmative but the learned Additional District Judge reversed this finding and returned the answer in the negative. After reappraising the evidence al learned Single Judge in the High Court upset the, finding of the learned Additional District Judge and restored that of the learned trial Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that it was not open the High Court to reverse a finding on a question of fact in a second appeal. This is no doubt the position ordinarily. However, we find that the learned Additional District Judge did not give due weight to the mutation which was sanctioned on 15-7-1936 and ignored circumstances which had an important bearing on the question in issue. By the aforementioned mutation the property which the petitioner was holding under the custom was mutated in favour of the collaterals on the ground that she had since been married. This mutation was attested in the presence of the local Lambardar. It was never challenged by the petitioner. In fact she waited for quarter of a century before bringing her suit. In the circumstances the learned Single Judge was competent to reverse the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.