MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs REHMAT ALI
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a property dispute. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit claiming ownership of land, while the defendant/petitioner asserted title based on an exchange deed, adverse possession, and protection under the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, a decision upheld by the appellate court and subsequently the High Court in civil revision. The Supreme Court addressed whether the petitioner's claims regarding ownership could override the established findings that he was merely a tenant and a trespasser. The Court held that the petitioner's arguments were frivolous attempts to perpetuate possession and that the case was concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that concurrent findings of fact regarding the status of possession and tenancy are not open to interference in the absence of legal error.
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the status of a party as a tenant or trespasser be challenged in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does a claim of adverse possession successfully negate a finding of tenancy in a property dispute?
- Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act 1882
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Muhammad Hussain petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 31-1-1987, arising out of a suit filed by Rehmat Ali plaintiff/respondent wherein it was contended that he was the owner of the suit property measuring 6 kanals comprising in Khata No.94/93, Khatooni No.490, Killa No.24-A of Mauza Taj Garh, upon which the petitioner was a tenant.
2. Muhammad Hussain defendant/petitioner contended the suit on legal and factual averments and pleaded that his title to the suit land was protected under section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, the suit was barred by time and that he has become owner on account of adverse possession and above all he had obtained the title on the basis of an exchange deed executed in his favour. The learned trial Judge after recording evidence on the contesting issues decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent in his favour vide order dated 17-7-86.
3. The petitioner filed appeal before the Addl. Distt. Judge III, Rahimyar Khan which was dismissed on 7-12-86. His civil revision before the High Court also met the same fate vide order dated 31-1-1987.
4. After hearing the learned counsel in support of this petition on the question advanced by him, we are unable to agree with him because the two Courts below have held the petitioner as tenant and his possession is that of a trespasser, as the petitioner also took the stand that on account of his adverse possession he had become the owner of the disputed property. According to the observation of the High Court the petitioner in order to perpetuate his possession on the land in dispute is making feeble attempts by raising frivolous pleas. As the case stands concluded on the concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below against the petitioner, therefore, it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. The petition is dismissed.