GHULAM RASOOL vs NAZIR and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court, which had upheld a decree for declaration in a property dispute. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their concurrent findings regarding the validity of a gift allegedly made by the deceased last male holder of the property. The plaintiffs, claiming as heirs under Muslim Law of Inheritance, challenged the gift and associated mutation proceedings, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court observed that all lower courts had rendered concurrent findings against the petitioner regarding the existence and validity of the gift. Furthermore, the petitioner's argument that the entry in the 'Rozenamcha Waqiati' of the Patwari was not given due weight was rejected, as the authenticity of that entry had not been established and was disbelieved by the courts below. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that no justification existed for interference with the concurrent factual findings, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift?
- Does an entry in the 'Rozenamcha Waqiati' of a Patwari automatically establish the validity of a gift if its authenticity is disputed and rejected by lower courts?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision which had arisen out of a suit and decree for declaration.
2. ' During a mutation proceedings it was found that the property in dispute purported to have been gifted away by its last male holder namely Sardar beneficiaries, as stated by the learned counsel, were the petitioner and respondent No3. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are beneficiaries if the property would have been disposed of in accordance with Muslim Law of Inheritance. Accordingly respondents Nos.1 & 2 feeling aggrieved by the assertion of the petitioner and respondent No3 in respect of the said gift in their favour, filed a suit challenging the gift as also the mutation proceedings as invalid and hit by fraud and misrepresentation. The suit stands decreed throughout up to the High Court in favour of the plaintiffs. The petitioner has now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel frankly stated that on the question of disputed facts regarding existence/validity of the gift all the Courts below have rendered concurrent findings against the petitioner. He however contended that the entry in the `Rozenamcha Waqiati' of the Patwari which supported the petitioner's assertion that Sardar Khan had made the disputed gift three days before his death, has not been given due legal weight and consideration. This argument of the learned counsel also is of no help to the petitioner because on facts the authenticity of the entry in the `Rozenamcha Waqiati' has not been established and the learned Courts below on this point have also not believed the petitioner's version. Keeping in view all these circumstances no justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.