Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM vs Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM And 3 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of her Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, upholding concurrent findings of fact against her in a suit for declaration and possession relating to an alleged sale of land. The core legal question involved whether the sale in favour of the petitioner was fictitious, bogus, and inoperative. All three lower courts rendered concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner, holding that the alleged sale suffered from these defects and that a Patwari's endorsement on the mutation did not constitute sufficient proof or acknowledgement of the sale by the alleged vendor under the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact based on sound reasons do not warrant interference, and affirmed that a Patwari's endorsement without positive proof of a statement made by the vendor is insufficient to prove a disputed sale.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a fictitious sale can be interfered with in second appeal?
- Is a Patwari's endorsement on a mutation sufficient proof of an acknowledgement of sale by the vendor?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant side in a suit for declaration and possession relating to an alleged sale of land; against the dismissal by the High Court, of the petitioner's Regular Second Appeal. He has lost throughout.
2. The main question involved in the suit was; whether, the sale in favour of the petitioner relied upon by her was fictitious, bogus and inoperative. All the three Courts have rendered concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner to the effect that the alleged sale did suffer from these defects.
3. Learned counsel, however, argued that the Patwari's endorsement on the mutation purported to show that the alleged vendor had admitted the factum of sale in favour of the petitioner. This by itself is neither positive proof of the alleged vendor having made a statement before the Patwari nor in the circumstances of this case it is sufficient to prove an acknowledgement opt the part of the alleged vendor. Be that as it may, the concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner are based on sound reasons, leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.