REHMAT KHAN vs MUHAMMAD IKRAMUL HAQ and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the ownership of land originally allotted to one Umra under the Thal Development Authority Abadkari Scheme. Following Umra's death, his legal heirs acquired proprietary rights and subsequently sold the land to the petitioner in 1976. However, the respondents asserted ownership based on a 1965 consent decree, which the petitioner challenged as fraudulent and collusive, alleging that the original owner had died prior to the purported sale. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of the power of attorney and the resulting consent decree could be disturbed in revision. The Supreme Court held that since the trial court and appellate court had concurrently found that the original owner had validly appointed an attorney who executed the sale, and because the decree had never been challenged, there was no basis for interference. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a power of attorney and a consent decree, when supported by evidence, are generally not subject to interference in revisional or appellate jurisdiction.
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a power of attorney be disturbed in civil revision?
- Is a consent decree immune from challenge if the underlying power of attorney was never contested?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 8th October, 1984 whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that Umra was allotted the disputed land by Thal Development Authority under Abadkari Scheme. After his death his legal heirs went on paying the revenue dues and eventually succeeded to acquire proprietary rights therein on 17th July 1976. Thereafter they sold the said land to the petitioner on 23rd August, 1976. However on 10th September, 1976 according to the petitioner the respondents got a report entered in the Revenue record whereby a consent decree, dated 31st March, 1965 was incorporated showing that the suit land had in fact been sold by Umra in their favour. Thereupon the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner of the said land vide sale-deed, dated 23rd August, 1976 and that decree, dated 31st March, 1965 was ineffective qua his rights. The said suit was contested by the respondents and finally it was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal of the petitioner was likewise dismissed and subsequently his civil revision was dismissed by the High Court as stated above. Hence the present petition.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that the decree, dated 31st March, 1965 was collusive, that Umra could have not sold the said land through Abdul Ghani his attorney in favour of the respondents in 1965 when he died in 1963, and that therefore the said decree was fraudulent. But the concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are to the effect that Umra had appointed Abdul Ghani as his attorney who sold the A land in question to the respondents and that no suit to challenge the power of attorney had been filed nor was the decree, dated 31st March, 1965 ever challenged. It was this concurrent finding of fact which has also been upheld in the civil revision by the High Court. Since this is the position no interference is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed.