NAZIR AHMAD vs SHAUKAT ALI and 3 others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a plaintiff against the High Court's dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal arising from a suit for declaration. The petitioner claimed that a transaction intended as a lease was fraudulently recorded and attested as a sale mutation by respondents in collusion with revenue authorities. The petitioner further argued that he remained unaware of the entries for nearly ten years, thereby seeking to overcome the bar of limitation, and alleged misreading of evidence by lower courts regarding the fraud. The Supreme Court evaluated the contentions, including the testimony of the officer who attested the mutation. Finding no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts on the core question of fraud, the Court held that the petitioner consequently failed on the issue of limitation as well. Observing no misreading of evidence or error of law, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding fraud in a sale mutation can be interfered with by the Supreme Court when no misreading of evidence is established?
- Does failure to prove fraud in challenging a mutation affect the petitioner's claim on the question of limitation?
- Can a claim of ignorance regarding revenue entries override the period of limitation without establishing fraud?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Regular Second Appeal, which had arisen out of the failure of his suit for declaration to the effect that a sale by him in favour of respondents' side was void on account of fraud.
2. ' Learned counsel has explained that the transaction between the parties was one of lease but the respondents' side in collusion with the Revenue Authorities got entered and attested a mutation of sale. Accordingly suit for declaration was filed. With regard to the delay the petitioner has, in addition to the merits, also failed on the question of limitation, he has contended that he was kept unaware of the entries in the Revenue Record for nearly 10 years.
3. ' Both these points were raised before the High Court but without any success. On merits it was then urged that although sufficient evidence was produced by the appellant before the trial Court but the same was misread and inferences adverse to the interest of the petitioner, were drawn. Same argument has been reiterated before us.
4. ' Learned Judge in the High Court while examining the case on merits observed that he having carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel, was unable to find any error in the concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below. We also heard the learned counsel on the question of misreading of evidence and asked him whether the Officer attesting the mutation having appeared against the petitioner, he would be able to neutralize his testimony which goes against petitioner's version. In reply learned counsel criticised the evidence in this behalf.
5. ' After hearing him, we do not find any justification for interference with the findings of fact on the vital question of fraud which go against the petitioner. That being so, he would also lose on the, question of limitation. Looked at from whatever angle, there is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.