Mst. ZAIDAT vs SHAHADAT And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for possession of land sold by her deceased father. The core legal question concerns the mental capacity and disposing mind of the vendor at the time of executing the registered sale-deed amidst allegations of advanced age, paralysis, and senility. The Supreme Court held that the question of mental fitness was one of fact, and finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts affirming the vendor's capacity, the petition for leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding mental capacity in the absence of any legal infirmity.
- Whether the mental fitness of a vendor to execute a sale-deed is a question of fact?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts regarding a vendor's mental capacity in the absence of legal infirmity?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---By a registered sale-deed dated 18-8-69 one Fatoo sold about 107 Kanals of land to the respondents. On 17-12-69- the petitioner who was the daughter of Fatoo filed a suit for possession of the land on the grounds, mainly, that at the time of the sale Fatoo did not possess a disposing mind on account of advanced age, paralysis and senility. The suit was resisted by the respondents. After a proper trial, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Fatoo was in possession of all his senses at the relevant time and was in a position to enter into the transaction in question. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court which failed. She now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The question whether Fatoo was mentally fit to sell his land to the respondents was one of fact.
The concurrent findings of the subordinate Courts are against the petitioner. We are not persuaded that these findings suffer from any infirmity. Leave is refused.