NOOR MUHAMMAD vs SALABAT BIBI And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that affirmed a decree setting aside a sale-deed of occupancy rights in State land. The respondent had initially sold her occupancy rights to the petitioner, but subsequently filed a civil suit alleging the sale-deed was obtained through fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court and the High Court ruled in favor of the respondent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court misread the evidence regarding the respondent's participation in the administrative proceedings for obtaining sanction to sell the land. The petitioner argued that he had indeed summoned the original record from the Collector's office and examined a witness who identified the respondent during those proceedings, contrary to the High Court's finding that he failed to prove these steps. The Supreme Court found substance in the petitioner's contention that the record was misread, holding that the evidence had been overlooked. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the merits of the case.
- Can a High Court's finding regarding the failure to prove a document be challenged if the record shows the relevant evidence was actually produced?
- Does the failure to summon original records or verify thumb impressions constitute a fatal defect in proving a transaction when other corroborative evidence exists?
- Section 19, Colonization of the Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---Respondent No.1 owned occupancy rights in State land situate in Chak No.49/3-R of Tehsil Okara. By a registered sale-deed dated 15-1-1981 she sold these rights to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.20,000. On 3-2-1981 she filed a civil suit for a declaration inter aria to the effect that the sale-deed had been obtained from her fraudulently and that it was ineffective in so far her rights in the said land were concerned. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal it was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Okara. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court but that met with no success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner was that respondent No.1 had not only executed the sale-deed but had appeared before the Sub-Registrar at the time of its registeration; further, before the sale was effected, she had appeared before the Collector for obtaining permission under section 19, Colonization of the Government Lands Act, for effecting the sale.
3: In support of this petition it is contended that the learned Single Judge in the High Court misread the record when he made the following observations: "The defendant also claimed that she had herself appeared in the proceedings before the Colony Assistant to pray for the grant of sanction under section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands (Punjab) Act to sell this land in his favour and further alleged that she had also made a statement to that effect before him. But in this suit he did not prove so and remained content with the production of a certified copy from that record without either summoning the original record of her statement or taking any step to have her thumb impression thereon compared to establish the identity of the maker of that statement."
It is pointed out that during the course of the trial the petitioner had summoned the original record from the office of the Collector and had also examined as one of his witnesses the local advocate who had identified respondent No.1 before the Collector.
4. After going through the evidence placed on record, there appears to be substance in the contention of the petitioner. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs Rs.5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present I record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.