NOOR MUHAMMAD And 7 Others vs Haji SHAHAMAND And 3 Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the Trial Court, District Judge, and High Court concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. The petitioners challenged the decision on two primary grounds: first, that the suit was barred by limitation, arguing that the starting point for limitation should be the date of taking possession rather than the date of mutation attestation; and second, that the courts erred in calculating the price at which the land should be pre-empted. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the lower courts, noting that the trial and appellate courts found no reliable evidence to support the petitioners' claim regarding the date of possession. Regarding the price calculation, the Court observed that this was a question of fact concurrently decided against the petitioners by the subordinate courts. Finding no infirmity in the lower courts' concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court held that there was no merit in the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal.
- Does the date of taking possession or the date of mutation attestation serve as the starting point for limitation in a pre-emption suit when evidence of prior possession is unreliable?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the price calculation in a pre-emption suit?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J-.--This petition for Special Leave to Appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit brought by the respondents. The Trial Court decreed the suit and its judgment was upheld by the District Judge and the High Court.
2. In support of this petition two contentions have been raised. One relates to limitation. It is not disputed that if the date of attestation of the mutation is taken as the starting point for limitation the suit brought by the respondents would be within time. The petitioners case is that they had taken over possession of the property in dispute long before the attestation of the mutation and if the date of taking over the possession was regarded as the terminus a quo for limitation, the suit was out of time. On this point, the trial Court and the first appellate Court have found that there was no reliable evidence to support the assertion of the petitioners that they had taken over possession under the sale prior to the attestation of the mutation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show us that their finding suffers from any infirmity. The High Court very properly declined to interfere with this finding.
3. The second contention of the petitioners is that the Courts below have erred in computing the price at which the pre-emptors should have been permitted to acquire the land in dispute. This controversy too relates to a question of fact. The concurrent finding of the subordinate Courts on this question is against the petitioners and the High Court has after examining the evidence upheld it. We find no basis for taking a different view in the matter.
4. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition.
Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.