BASHIR and others vs FATEH SHAH and others
These are two petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court arising out of a pre-emption suit. The core legal question for consideration was whether the suit was filed within the period of limitation. The sale was entered in the mutation register on 20-4-1964, attested on 28-4-1964, and the suit was instituted on 26-4-1965. The vendees contended that they had obtained possession under the sale on 20-4-1964, rendering the suit time-barred. The courts below repelled this contention based on revenue entries including Khasra Girdawari, holding that the question of notice was not required and that entries regarding change of possession were mutilated and suspected. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the courts below regarding possession and limitation cannot be upset by this Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal.
- Whether a pre-emption suit filed within one year of the attestation of mutation is barred by time when vendees claim prior possession?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding revenue entries and possession be upset by the Supreme Court?
- Whether mutilated and suspected entries in Khasra Girdawari can establish change of possession for limitation purposes?
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--These are two petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 30-5-1988, arising out of a pre-emption suit. Since these petitions arise out of the same order and between the same parties therefore both of them will be disposed by this single order.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in both these petitions we have come to the conclusion that the only question for consideration is whether the suit was filed within time. The sale was entered in the register of mutation on 20-4-1964 and the same was attested on 28-4- 1964 while the suit was filed on 26-4-1965. The vendees contended that they had obtained possession under the sale on 20-4-1964 and thus suit filed on 26-4-1965 was barred by time. The Courts below repelled this contention. The entry in Khasra Girdawari Ex. D.1 showing the possession of the vendee long before the sale in question and thus the question of notice to the prospective pre-emptors was not required. This entry remained even before the sale. Entry of Ex.P.8 was also referred to indicate the change of possession in the Khasra Girdawari but that was held to have mutilated and suspected. These entries were disbelieved by the Courts below. Since it was a question of findings of fact cannot be upset by this Court.
3. ' In the light of the foregoing discussion we do not find it a fit case for the grant of leave. The petitions are, accordingly dismissed.