Pakistan Case LawMAUJ DIN Versus Mst. BANG Through Legal Heirs And Other
The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction regarding land located in Tehsil Vehari, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, the Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner. Upon a regular second appeal, the Lahore High Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment and restored the trial court's dismissal, concluding upon re-appraisal of the evidence that the sale mutation in favor of the plaintiff was fraudulently and collusively secured and rightly cancelled by the Collector. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question involved the re-appraisal of evidence and the validity of the sale mutation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's conclusion, reached after re-appraising the evidence, was in accordance with law and subject to no exception. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that no case for leave to appeal was made out and dismissed the petition, laying down that concurrent findings based on proper appreciation of evidence regarding fraudulent transactions warrant no interference.
- Whether the High Court can re-appraise evidence in a regular second appeal to set aside findings of the first appellate court?
- Does a clandestine and collusively sanctioned sale mutation confer valid ownership rights?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the impugned judgment is based on a proper appreciation of evidence?
ORDER
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---Petitioner Mauj Din's suit for declaration that he was owner of the land in Chak No.323/E.B., Tchsil Vehari and for perpetual injunction before the Civil Judge, Vehari was dismissed by judgment dated 12-10-1968. He appealed to the District Judge against the aforesaid judgment of the Civil Judge. Appeal was dealt with by the Additional District Judge, Multan who by judgment dated 31-3-1969 accepted the same and decreed the suit of Mauj Din plaintiff, for a declaration that he was owner of the suit land and as a consequential relief further ordered that the defendant shall not interfere with the possession of Mauj din.
Judgment of the Additional District Judge was challenged by way of Regular Second Appeal in the Lahore High Court. The High Court by its judgment dated 26-6-1989 accepted the appeal. The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was set aside and that of the trial Court restored with the result that the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
Mauj Din now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the Lahore High Court. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:--
The parties fought with regard to issue No.3 and led evidence pertaining to this issue but as the same had not been proved, the trial Court dismissed the suit.
In the last order passed by the High Court in the Regular Second Appeal, the High Court again went through the entire evidence and then came to the conclusion, "it appears that the plaintiff- respondent had been in possession of the suit land and taking advantage of the absence of the lady from the village, he, in collusion with the Revenue Officials and with the support of his friends and relations, got the sale mutation clandestinely, fraudulently and collusively sanctioned in his favour and it was rightly cancelled by the Collector on an appeal preferred by her". For the foregoing reasons as well as for other reasons given in the impugned judgment, the judgment of the Additional District Judge was upset.
It is thus, obvious that there is hardly any legal proposition worth examination. The High Court having re-appraised the entire evidence came to the conclusion which is in accordance with law and the evidence led by the parties and as such is subject to no exception. No case for leave is made out.
Dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza525 judgments
- Nasim Hasan Shah3,148 judgments