SUALIHEEN vs NOOR ZAMAN and another
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in a civil dispute concerning the ownership and sale of land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had successfully proven that the disputed land was purchased from the respondent, Noor Zaman, and that the name of his brother, Yasin, had been erroneously recorded as the vendor in the mutation record. The High Court had previously determined that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish this alleged sale and that the matter of who the vendor was constituted a question of fact. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings of the lower courts were unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that findings of fact made by lower courts, when supported by evidence, are not subject to interference in revision or appeal proceedings.
- Is a finding of fact regarding the identity of a vendor in a land mutation record open to challenge in civil revision if supported by evidence?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish a sale of property when the mutation record reflects a different vendor than the one alleged?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The question was whether the petitioner's contention to the effect that the land in dispute was, in fact, purchased from Noor Zaman, who admittedly was its owner, but instead the name of his brother Yasin had been erroneously entered as its vendor in the mutation record, was well-founded.
2. This question has been fully gone into by the Courts below and the last judgment in this respect was rendered by the High Court and after a thorough examination of all the circumstances the High Court concluded as follows:- "It was for the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to prove the sale. In my judgment, evidence on record is insufficient to hold that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) had purchased the suit property from Noor Zaman as alleged and the name of Yasin was erroneously entered in the mutation foil. The question whether the land was purchased by Sualiheen (petitioner herein) from Noor Zaman or Yasin is essentially a question of fact and it is hardly open to the petitioner to challenge it unless he can show that the finding is without evidence. Conclusion of the Court below that sale by Noor Zaman was not established, cannot be disturbed in revision. Accordingly, civil revision fails and is dismissed in limine."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any evidence or circumstance which might show that the above conclusion of the High Court is wrong. Dismissed.