Mst. KHUSHNOODI vs AZIZ KHAN
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had dismissed her revision petition against concurrent findings of the lower courts granting the respondent a decree for possession and mesne profits in respect of a portion of a property. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the licensee status and lack of adverse possession or oral purchase suffered from any legal infirmity justifying interference in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below did not suffer from any infirmity or deficiency that would have justified the High Court in reopening the issues under revisional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of jurisdictional error or material irregularity under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact can be reopened in a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without showing material infirmity or deficiency?
- Can a licensee claim adverse possession or ownership based on an alleged oral purchase without proper proof?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner who has been now ousted from a portion of the Quarter No, 5/336, Liaquatabad, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind dated 11- 11-1986 whereby her Revision Petition, against the concurrent findings of the two Courts, was dismissed with costs.
2. ' The respondent Aziz Khan sued in 1968 the husband of the petitioner for getting possession of the aforesaid portion of the Quarter which according to him had been handed over to the husband of the petitioner as a licensee, being his relative. The husband of the petitioner pleaded joint purchase of the Quarter or in the alternative adverse possession over it or an irrevocable licence under which he had invested in the superstructure. Issues were framed but on facts all were decided against the petitioner and the respondent was granted a decree of possession and mesne profits. The Appeal failed and so did the Revision.
3. ' The petitioner personally appeared before us and sought to advance her case of an oral purchase of the site from the plaintiff-respondent and his subsequent refusal to reduce the transaction to writing.
4. We have examined the record and find that the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below does not suffer from any such infirmity or deficiency as could have justified the High Court in reopening the issues in a Revision Petition under section 115 C.P.C. No merit is found and hence leave to appeal is refused.