MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN And Another vs REHMAT DIN And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a second appeal regarding a suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs had established their qualification as pre-emptors based on their status as owners in the specific patti where the disputed land was situated. The trial court had initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, but the District Judge set aside this decree, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of distinct pattis in the village or their ownership therein. The High Court affirmed this dismissal, noting a lack of evidence in the revenue records to support the claim. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had properly appreciated the facts and that the oral testimony of the Patwari was insufficient to establish the claim in the absence of corroborating revenue records. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that no question of law was involved requiring interference with the concurrent findings of fact.
- Is oral testimony of a Patwari sufficient to establish the existence of a patti in a pre-emption suit in the absence of supporting revenue records?
- Can the Supreme Court re-appraise facts where lower courts have concurrently found that a pre-emptor failed to establish their qualification?
- Does the absence of evidence in revenue records regarding the division of a village into distinct pattis defeat a claim of pre-emption based on ownership in a patti?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 14-5-1989.
2. The facts, in brief, are that land measuring 20 kanals 3 marlas in village Pourmiana; Tehsil and District Attock, was sold by its owner Fateh Muhammad to Rehmat Din, through Mutation No.3366 attested on 23-1-1968, for a consideration of Rs.10,000. Sher Muhammad, the father of the petitioners 2 to 5 brought a suit for possession through pre-emption in the Court of Civil Judge. The qualification of pre-emptor was claimed to be that the plaintiff was an owner in estate and the patti in which the land in question was situated while the defendant did not have these qualifications. The sale price was also disputed. The suit was contested and various issues were framed. The trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and decreed the suit on 1-11-1969 subject to the deposit of pre-emption amount of Rs.5,000 before 24-12-1969. In appeal, the learned District Judge Campbellpur set aside the decree of the trial Court and ordered the suit of the plaintiffs to be dismissed. This order of the first appellate Court was challenged by the plaintiffs in second appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs were the owner in patti. The fact of existence of patti for the purposes of pre-emption was not in dispute between the parties, therefore, the finding of the High Court was not correct. The learned High Court has observed as under:-- "As for the first point, plaintiff claimed pre-emption on twin grounds viz. Ownership of land in patti and the revenue estate. As regards the first qualification of being owner of the land in patti, suffice it to observe that there is no evidence to establish that village Pourmiana was divided into distinct and separate pattis for purposes of pre-emption. Revenue papers do not at all show that village Pourmiana had any paths or that the land in suit was situated in a particular patti wherein the plaintiff was a prior owner of land. Only evidence led in this behalf was oral statement of village Patwari who gave his testimony without reference to Revenue Record."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that pedigree table Exh.P.3 was not properly considered, the two judgments of the Courts below do not show that this contention was raised before them. The finding of the two Courts is clear that the petitioners do not own any land in a particular patti. The oral statement of Patwari was not sufficient to support the case of the petitioners. It has been observed by the District Judge that from the examination of Patwari it is clear that he made a statement off the record and he admitted that in current Jamabandi there is no mention of "Tarafs".
5. The facts have been properly appreciated by the Courts and they do not require re-appraisal by this Court. No point of law is involved. This petition has no force. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.