SHAH MUHAMMAD vs PERVAIZ HUSSAIN
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil dispute over a residential plot, where the respondent filed a suit for possession alleging the petitioner took unauthorized possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, a decision that was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Lahore High Court through the dismissal of the petitioner's regular second appeal. The core legal question concerns the proper appraisal of evidence regarding ownership and possession of the disputed property. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the respondent's ownership, supported by documentary evidence including sale-deeds, and the absence of cogent evidence from the petitioner establishing ownership or ancestral right, were unexceptionable. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence will not be interfered with lightly.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding property ownership?
- Is oral assertion of ancestral ownership sufficient without cogent documentary evidence in a suit for possession?
- Whether a regular second appeal can be dismissed when the appellant fails to establish title or lawful possession?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Shah Muhammad petitioner and is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16th February, 1981. The dispute between the parties is in respect of a residential plot. Briefly the facts are that the respondent filed a suit for possession of the said property claiming himself to be its owner against the present petitioner who was alleged to have taken possession of the same without any entitlement. The trial Court decreed the suit which was upheld on appeal by the Additional District Judge. His RSA was subsequently dismissed by the Lahore High Court for the reason that the petitioner was unable to produce any cogent evidence in support of his assertion that he was owner of the disputed property as it was his ancestral property. On the other hand the respondent in support of his claim of ownership of the said property besides producing oral evidence had also produced documentary evidence in the form of sale-deeds Exhs. P.4 and P.5 indicating that he was owner of the property in dispute.
2. ' Learned counsel before us attempted to argue that the Lahore High Court did not make a proper appraisal of the evidence in the instant case. He contended that there were some criminal cases in the form of a private complaint P. 1 and F.I.R. P. 2 registered pertaining to the said property which showed that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed property and that he was dispossessed by the respondent.
3. We have considered the argument of the learned counsel and find it without any force. There was no evidence on the record to establish that the petitioner was in possession of the property as owner or that the property in question was his ancestral property. Consequently there is a unanimous verdict of the two Courts below as well as the High Court as against him. The result is that there is no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- RAIS DIL MURAD KHAN vs ALI NAWAZ And Other 1997 MLD 1309