Haji ALLAH BAKHSH And 2 Others vs GHULAM ALI And Other
The petitioners, who were plaintiffs and pre-emptors, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a revision petition, reversed the judgment of the first appellate court, and dismissed their pre-emption suit. The trial court had dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court ruled in favor of the petitioners, establishing their superior right of pre-emption and rejecting the respondents' claim as cultivating tenants due to alleged forgeries in the revenue record. The High Court, however, reversed this finding of fact regarding tenancy and record interpolation. The core legal question concerns the proper judicial approach in examining allegations of forgery and interpolation in revenue records, particularly regarding primary evidence and the finality of revenue proceedings before the Collector. The Supreme Court held that the matter required fuller examination and an authoritative pronouncement, as the approach adopted by the High Court in accepting the correctness of the record without examining original records or primary evidence warranted closer scrutiny. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal along with interim protective orders regarding the suit property.
- Whether the High Court can reverse a finding of forgery and interpolation in revenue records without examining the original record and primary evidence?
- Does a proceeding before the Collector regarding revenue record corrections possess finality and exclusiveness when the matter is simultaneously under examination in a civil court?
- Whether a pre-emptor's superior right of pre-emption can be defeated by a tenant's claim established through interpolated revenue entries?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioners who are plaintiffs/pre---emports, seek leave, to appeal against the .Judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4-7-19.59 whereby a Revision Petition was allowed, the judgment of the first appellate Court reversed and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
2. The sale of the suit property had taken place for a sum of Rs.1,25,000. The petitioners sought to pre-empt the sale and failed in the trial Court but succeeded in the first appellate Court, mainly for the reason that their superior right of pre-emption was held established and the claim of the respondents to be the cultivating tenants to possession of the property was rejected on the ground of forgeries in the record. This finding of forgery and interpolation to the record and the respondents being not the tenants of the property, was reversed by the impugned judgment. The three reasons giver, for reversing the finding of fact are, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, misconceived. Without examining the original record and without adverting to the primary evidence of those who made the entries, the learned Judge in the High Court believed the correctness of the record. This could not be the approach to the case where forgery and interpolation in the record was alleged. It was further contended that there was no final order passed by the Collector with regard to the correctness of the Revenue Record, because the proceedings were not pursued by stating that the same matter was under examination in the Civil Court. Therefore, neither the exclusiveness of the determination by the Collector nor its finality could be recognized. The Rules on the subject were not examined for holding that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari were made in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The learned counsel also made it clear that as the value of the subject-- matter of the suit was far in excess of Rs.50,000, a direct appeal was filed but he was asked to file a petition for leave to appeal and in compliance with that direction a Petition for leave to appeal was filed. At the moment, we are not going in depth of the case as we find that this is a matter which requires fuller examination and an authoritative pronouncement by the Court.
3. Leave to appeal is therefore, granted. The property in dispute shall not be alienated, nor trees cut or the property damaged in any manner pending disposal of the case. Security shall be in the sum of Rs.2,500.