ABDUL GHAFOOR and 6 others vs ABDUL HAQUE
The petitioner, a transferee of a portion of a house, initiated civil litigation claiming ownership of a staircase located within the property, asserting it fell within his transferred share. Following the dismissal of his suit, appeal, and revision petition by the lower courts, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The lower courts and the Settlement authorities had determined that the staircase was part of the portion transferred to the respondent, primarily because access to the staircase was through the 'dehwari' (courtyard/entrance area) which had been transferred to the respondent. Furthermore, the petitioner's predecessor had previously admitted in a revision petition before the Settlement authorities that the staircase had not been transferred to him, thereby acknowledging the respondent's entitlement. The Supreme Court found no legal error in the concurrent findings of the Settlement hierarchy and the Civil Courts. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any valid grounds for interference, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Can a petitioner challenge the concurrent findings of Settlement authorities and Civil Courts regarding property transfer boundaries without demonstrating a legal error?
- Does the transfer of an access point like a 'dehwari' imply the transfer of the staircase connected to it?
- Is a previous admission regarding the non-transfer of property in a revision petition binding on a successor in interest?
ORDER
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a transferee of a portion of the house No, S-4, Block 4, Sargodha, instituted a civil suit claiming that the staircase fell within the share or portion of the property transferred to him. His suit, his appeal and his Revision failed. He, therefore, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 18-124983 by which the Revision was dismissed.
2. ' The transferring authority has not only made portions of the house but also indicated it on a plan showing the share/portion of each transferee. The staircase was taken to be a part of the portion transferred to the respondent, the reasoning of the High Court being as follows:- 'The approach to the staircase was through the dehwari which was transferred to the respondent.
3. Therefore, normally it was the respondent who could be considered to be entitled to use and own the staircase. Again in the revision petition (copy exh.D6) filed by the late Abdullah against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the Additional Settlement Commissioner he made grievance of the fact that the staircase in dispute had not been transferred to him and prayed for its transfer in his favour. His revision petition was dismissed indicating that the Settlement Authorities endorsed its transfer in the respondent's favour."
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to show as to how the conclusions drawn in the Settlement hierarchy and in the Civil Courts are open to exception. No case is made out and leave to appeal is refused.