HASHIM ALI vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE And Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 seeking a declaration that he was the owner in possession of land and that a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner was forged. The trial court decreed the suit, and the Additional District Judge and High Court dismissed the subsequent appeal and revision petition. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could challenge the plaintiff's title based on an alleged fraudulent allotment when the petitioner did not claim to have purchased the land from the plaintiff and the plaintiff's allotment remained intact. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts were justified in granting the declaration since the plaintiff was the true owner and his allotment had not been set aside by any competent authority. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot impeach the title of a recorded owner on the ground of fraud in allotment when that allotment remains valid and un-cancelled by a competent forum.
- Whether a civil court can ignore a subsisting allotment of land that has not been set aside by a competent authority?
- Is a defendant entitled to challenge a plaintiff's title on the ground of fraudulent allotment when the defendant denies purchasing the property from the plaintiff?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding ownership warrant interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit filed by Ali Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 6 for, a declaration inter alia that he was owner in possession of about 51 Kanals of land and that the sale-deed dated 18-8-72 alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the petitioner and some others, was forged one. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the petitioner's appeal before the Additional District Judge and revision petition before the High Court failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It was not the case of the petitioner and the other vendees that they had purchased the land in dispute from Ali Muhammad, plaintiff, predecessor-in---interest of respondents Nos.1 to 6; on the other hand, they claimed that they had obtained the land from another person of the same name.
The trial Court as well as the Additional District Judge have concurrently held that the Settlement authorities had transferred the land to the plaintiff and he was the true owner thereof. In view of this finding the decree passed by the trial Court in the plaintiff's favour does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
3. In support of this petition it is alleged that the allotment obtained by Ali Muhammad was fraudulent. By way of an explanation it is stated that he, by misrepresentation, had also obtained the allotment in respect of the claim of one Alia whose father bore the same name as his own and was of the same caste. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed a writ petition in the High Court which is still pending to seek registration of a criminal case against Ali Muhammad and his successors-in-interest.
4. It is to be noticed that the allotment obtained by Ali Muhammad, plaintiff, is still intact and has not been so far set aside by any competent authority. There is no finding by the Civil Court that the said allotment suffers from any fraud. In the circumstances when the petitioner's own case is that he and the other vendees had not purchased the land in dispute from Ali Muhammad the Courts below were justified in granting the declaration sought in the suit. The petition is dismissed.