SPARAS KHAN vs MANZOOR HAIDER SHAH and others
This petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's revision petition, which in turn upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's civil suit. The respondents owned certain lands and had entered into mortgage transactions with the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently filed a suit claiming ownership of the land by purchase based on a mutation. The trial court, appellate court, and the High Court concurrently dismissed the petitioner's suit upon finding that the land was mortgaged rather than sold, and no evidence supported the claim of a sale. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent factual findings regarding the nature of the transaction as a mortgage rather than a sale suffered from any misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings were well-founded and no misreading of evidence was established. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will not be disturbed in the absence of a demonstration of misreading or non-reading of evidence.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the nature of a land transaction as a mortgage rather than a sale can be interfered with without proving misreading of evidence?
- Does a mutation entry reflecting a mortgage rather than a sale confer ownership rights through purchase to the mortgagee?
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This petition arises from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 9-1-1988, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The respondents are owners of certain lands situate in village Morate, Tehsil Talagang, District Chakwal. They are alleged to have mortgaged land bearing Khasra No,451 for a sum of Rs,1,800 vide Mutation No,1385 and land bearing Khasra Nos.465 and 462 for Rs,800 vide Mutation No,1379 in favour of the petitioner. The respondents agreed to sell land measuring 51 Kanals 8 Marlas for a sum of Rs,10,000. They are, however, alleged to have committed a fraud and reported to the Patwari that they have mortgaged land measuring 51 Kanals 8 Marlas in favour of the petitioner for Rs,10,000 and a Mutation No,1437 was entered on 18-2-1968 in the absence of the petitioner. It was subsequently attested on 21-2-1968. The petitioner then filed a suit claiming to be the owner of the land in question by purchase. It was a contested suit and the learned trial Court after recording the evidence dismissed the suit on 16-7-1984 and the appeal and revision of the petitioner were also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Chakwal, on 20-9-1986 and the High Court on 9-1-1988.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have, gone through the judgments of the Courts below. All the Courts have concurrently non-suited the petitioner by holding that in fact the land was mortgaged with the petitioner and no evidence has been brought forth that the same was sold to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not pinpoint any misreading of evidence in this case. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same.