SARFRAZ KHAN CHEEMA vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 2 others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his revision petition affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The dispute involved a house that was transferred as evacuee property to respondent No. 1 by the Settlement Authorities in 1968, followed by the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD). The petitioner's father was ejected, and the petitioner subsequently filed a declaratory suit claiming ownership based on an alleged purchase from a non-Muslim in 1947. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court concurrently dismissed the petitioner's suit and subsequent challenges due to a lack of proof regarding the confirmation of the sale by the Custodian of Evacuee Properties. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts suffered from no legal infirmity, as the property was duly transferred as evacuee property and the petitioner failed to prove a valid confirmed purchase. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent decisions.
- Whether a declaratory suit regarding evacuee property is maintainable without proof of a confirmed sale by the Custodian of Evacuee Properties?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when no legal infirmity is shown?
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--The petitioner seeks leave against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 20-4-1983, whereby his revision petition was dismissed.
2. ' The house in dispute, being an evacuee property, was transferred to Muhammad Ashraf respondent No,1 by the Settlement Authorities in 1968. Ch. Jalal Khan father of Sarfraz Khan petitioner No,1 herein was in occupation and was ejected through the Rent Controller by respondent No,1. Sarfraz Khan brought a suit for declaration to the effect that the property in dispute is not an evacuee property and the petitioner is the sole owner of it. The suit of the plaintiff/petitioner after contest by the respondent No,1 was dismissed on 21-6-1982. Appeal of the petitioner before the District Judge, Gujrat was also dismissed and revision petition before the Lahore High Court also got the same fate.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings of the Courts below. The record of the case will show that the house in dispute was transferred in favour of the respondent No,1 being an evacuee property and a P TD to this was issued in his favour on 1-4-1968 by the Settlement Department. As regards the petitioner's claim to have purchased the house in dispute from a non-Muslim in 1947, there is no proof to show that the sale was confirmed by the Custodian of the Evacuee Properties. All the three Courts below have concurrently refused to accept the petitioner as the owner of the disputed property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that the concurrent finding of fact arrived at against the petitioner suffers from any infirmity. The result is that this petition has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.