Syed DOST MUHAMMAD vs JEENAND And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 16-8-1990, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition and upheld the appellate decision of the Majlis-i-Shoora. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding land, claiming it was ancestral property and that the respondents were tenant-at-will, whereas revenue records reflected the respondents as occupancy tenants. The trial court decreed the suit, but the Majlis-i-Shoora accepted the respondent's appeal, which was affirmed by the High Court upon assessing the evidence of cultivatory occupation. The core legal question concerns whether interference is warranted against concurrent findings of fact regarding revenue records and possession. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove his case with sufficient evidence and that concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums regarding cultivatory possession and revenue entries do not warrant interference. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on an assessment of evidence unless a solid legal ground is made out.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding revenue entries and cultivatory possession?
- Does a party fail to establish a case for declaration when evidence regarding tenancy-at-will is sketchy and disbelieved by courts?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against a High Court judgment upholding an appellate decision based on concurrent factual assessments?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: --Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 16-8-1990.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land in dispute against the respondents on the ground that the disputed property is ancestral property of the petitioner and the respondents were inducted as tenant-at-will but without any knowledge of the petitioner. The entries in the Revenue Record in favour of the respondents have been made as Lath Buad Bazgars (occupancy tenants). The respondents contested the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner on 18-12-1989. The respondent No.1's appeal was accepted by Majlis-i-Shoora on 10-4-1990. The petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court after the assessment of the evidence has observed that the respondents are in cultivatory occupation of the suit land for the last several years. The evidence also suggests that certain Laths have also been made by them. Therefore, on merits, the petitioner was not able to prove his case.
3. The entries are in favour of the respondents. There is no entry that the respondents are tenants- at-will. There is also no evidence that they were inducted as tenants by the petitioner. The petitioner has led sketchy evidence which has been disbelieved by the two Courts. There are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. No ground exists for interference by this Court.
This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.