MUHAMMAD ANWAR And Others vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against the dismissal of their regular second appeal by the High Court in a suit for declaration of ownership in possession based on purchase. The core legal question concerned the legal effect of revenue record entries and mutation of sale where the petitioners claimed they remained owners despite the alleged purchase. The Supreme Court examined the revenue records and found that concurrent findings of fact rendered by the lower courts against the petitioners were unexceptionable, noting further that entries remaining consistent for nearly forty years without any corrective steps by the petitioners supported these findings. The Supreme Court held that no justification existed for interference with the concurrent findings, and accordingly refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that long-standing entries in revenue records left unchallenged for decades reinforce concurrent findings of fact against a party claiming ownership.
- Whether long-standing entries in revenue records left uncorrected for a significant period support concurrent findings of fact against a party claiming ownership?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding revenue record entries without sufficient justification?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants' side (in a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs ace the owners in possession due to purchase of the suit property) against the dismissal by the High Court of their regular second appeal.
2. Petitioners' plea was that according to the Revenue Record they being the owners of the property even after the alleged purchase by the respondents, due effect was not given in the Jamabandi entries in that behalf. That being so according to their learned counsel, the mutation of sale relied upon from the respondents' side should not have been given any effect and it was liable to be ignored.
3. With the help of the learned counsel we examined the entries in the Revenue Records in some depth. In addition to the reasons which prevailed with the learned lower Courts for rendering concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners, which are unexceptionable, we feel that the entries like (as stated) "Bela legan" "Bewaja Bea" having remained on the record consistently for nearly 40 years, nothing was done from the petitioners' side to get them corrected. Their conduct gives further support to the findings of fact by the learned Courts below against the petitioners.
4. Accordingly after hearing the learned counsel we do not find any justification for interference, leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- MANZER HUSSAIN Versus ABDUL SALAM 1995 PLD 138