WAZEER ALI vs ABDULLAH and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision, which had challenged an appellate order setting aside a trial court decree passed in favour of the petitioner in a declaratory suit for possession. The petitioner had instituted the original suit seeking a declaration that a disputed sale-deed dated 4-1-1967 was fictitious, fraudulent, and ineffective against his rights. The core legal question concerned the appreciation of evidence regarding the execution and proof of the sale-deed, specifically the non-production of marginal witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the argument pertained to a question of fact which had been properly adjudicated upon by the appellate court after appreciating the evidence, and no legal defect was shown to warrant interference by the High Court or the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that findings of fact by lower appellate courts based on evidence will not be interfered with absent a legal defect.
- Whether findings of fact recorded by an appellate court regarding the execution of a sale-deed can be interfered with in civil revision?
- Does the non-production of a marginal witness to a sale-deed raise a question of law warranting interference by the Supreme Court?
- When can the High Court interfere with concurrent or appellate findings of fact in a civil matter?
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has arisen from the judgment and order dated 29-10-84 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No,1726-D/84, whereby a decree passed in a declaratory suit for possession in favour of the petitioner on 11-4-83 by the Civil Judge was set aside in appeal by the respondents before the Additional District Judge, Kasur vide his order, dated 12-8-84. Thereafter, civil revision of the petitioner before the High Court, Lahore against the said order of the District Judge was also dismissed in limine.
2. ' The petitioner had brought his original suit for declaration to the effect that he had not sold the land in dispute to the respondents through a sale-deed, dated 4-1-1967 which was fictitious and obtained with fraudulent manner, this ineffective against the rights of the petitioner.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the judgments of the Courts below. We do not see any merit in this petition which deserves dismissal forthwith. The question raised by the learned counsel before us, is that neither any sale-deed was executed nor it was proved by the respondents, by producing any marginal witness to the sale-deed. This argument of the learned counsel is with regard to the question of fact, which has already been adjudicated upon by the learned Additional District Judge in appeal, who after appraisement of the evidence and all the relevant material on record had arrived at a correct conclusion. The learned High Court also rightly not considered it a fit case for any interference in the finding of the District Judge. The learned counsel, however, did not show us any legal defect therein, for consideration of this Court.
4. ' The result is that this petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed. Leave refused.