NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others vs MALUK
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld a decree for possession of a shop in favour of the respondent. The respondent claimed ownership based on a transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and allotment, alleging misreading and non-reading of evidence, and further contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court addressed whether the respondent was in possession and if the property was validly transferred under the Settlement Scheme. The Court held that the findings of fact regarding allotment and possession were concurrent and did not warrant re-appraisal. Furthermore, the Court determined that the matter concerning the disposal of the shop under Settlement laws had become a past and closed transaction, thereby removing it from the jurisdiction of Settlement authorities and confirming the civil court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification for interference and refused leave to appeal, affirming the respondent's ownership and entitlement to possession.
- Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a civil revision where concurrent findings of fact have been rendered by lower courts?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction over a property dispute once the disposal of the property under Settlement laws has become a past and closed transaction?
- Is a claim based on a transfer occurring after the repeal of Settlement laws sustainable if the respondent's prior claim under those laws is valid?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants side in a suit for possession, against the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision. It had arisen out of respondent's suit regarding a shop which as claimed belong to them; because the same stood transferred under the Settlement laws -- Settlement Scheme No,VII. The respondent's suit was decreed and the petitioners' appeal and revision were dismissed.
2. ' The main question for determination before the Court was whether the respondent-plaintiff was in possession of the shop and it stood transferred to him under the Settlement Scheme No,VII.
3. Findings of fact with regard to the allotment and possession and subsequent transfer under the Scheme rendered by the Courts below are against the petitioners.
4. ' Learned counsel has contended that the said findings are based on misreading and non-reading of the relevant evidence and further that the Courts below had no jurisdiction.
5. ' The petitioners' rival claim is based upon the transfer of the suit property after the repeal of the Settlement laws--rather during the pendency of the proceedings in this case. That plea would succeed only if the respondent's claim fails. That is why the learned counsel obviously tried to attack the findings in favour of the respondent.
6. After hearing him on the question of misreading, non-reading and wrong appreciation of evidence, we are not satisfied that this case needs re-appraisal of evidence in this Court. Accordingly, no justification has been made out for setting aside the findings of fact. That being so, the respondent has rightly been declared owner and entitled to the possession of the shop.
7. The objection regarding jurisdiction of the civil Court, in the circumstances of this case, cannot be upheld. The matter with regard to the disposal of the shop under the Settlement law, had become past and closed transaction. The Settlement authorities were no more concerned with the matter.
8. On this question also, no justification has been made out for interference with the view taken by the High Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.