Mst. TAJ BIBI And Another vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR And 6 Other
This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court passed in its revisional jurisdiction, concerning a suit for possession of disputed houses. The respondent No. 1 filed the suit against the appellants, which was initially decreed by the Qazi, Turbat, based on an oath taken by the plaintiffs' attorney at the appellants' request. The appellants unsuccessfully appealed to the Majlis-e-Shoora, which maintained the decree. Subsequently, the respondents filed a revision application in the High Court, which affirmed the lower courts' findings. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its revisional jurisdiction by refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the ownership of the land underneath the disputed houses. The Supreme Court held that the suit was decreed based on the preponderance of evidence and that the appellants failed to frame or request issues regarding their ownership of the land. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that findings of fact recorded by lower courts are not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction where no legal error is demonstrated.
- Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
- Is a decree based on an oath taken at the request of the parties valid?
- Does the failure to frame an issue regarding ownership preclude a party from challenging a decree on that ground?
S.A. NUSRAT, J.-- This appeal, by leave of this Court, arises out of a judgment of the learned High Court passed in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
2. The respondent No.1 filed a suit against the appellants for possession of the disputed houses in the Court of the Qazi, Turbat. In the written statement filed in the trial Court, it was pleaded by the appellants that the land underneath the disputed houses belonged to the father of appellant No.1 and she had been residing there alongwith her father for the last 10 years. The suit was decreed on the basis of oath taken by the plaintiffs-respondents' attorney a: desired by the appellants themselves vide their application. The appellants filed appeal challenging the said judgment and decree before the Majlis-e-Shoora. The appeal was dismissed and the decree passed by trial Court was maintained only in favour of the respondent No.1 on the ground that the same was not maintainable in favour of the minors. The respondents thereupon filed a revision application in the High Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Majis-e-Shoora respectively.
3. In support of the appeal, it was mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the two Courts below had ignored the evidence and failed to decide that the land underneath the disputed houses did not belong to the respondents-plaintiffs. The only issue framed in the suit was, whether the respondents-- plaintiffs had proved their case against the appellants. No issue whatsoever was framed or required to be framed at any stage on behalf of the appellants with regard to their ownership of the land underneath the disputed houses. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the decisions of the two Courts as well as the one sought to be impugned herein. The learned High Court has found that the suit was decreed on the basis of preponderance of evidence and there was no scope for interference, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, with findings of fact recorded in the suit. Such finding of the learned High Court are indeed unexceptionable. We, therefore,, find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Rana LIAQAT ALI and anothers 2006 YLR 703