HAKIM ALI vs SAKHI MUHAMMAD and 16 others
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil litigation regarding a registered sale deed of agricultural land executed by the deceased owner in favour of the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the scope and limits of the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeal to interfere with concurrent or first appellate findings of fact, specifically regarding the validity and consideration of a registered sale deed, in light of admissions made by the deceased vendor during his lifetime. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the propriety of the High Court reopening a finding of fact—particularly while overlooking the direct statement of the vendor admitting the sale—merited detailed examination. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to review the sustainability of the High Court's judgment setting aside the first appellate court's finding upholding the registered sale deed.
- Can the High Court reopen a finding of fact regarding consideration in a second appeal?
- What is the evidentiary value of a statement made by a deceased vendor in a previous suit regarding a disputed sale deed?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to about 80 Kanals of agricultural land situate in Chak No,45/TDA, Tehsil Bhakkar. It was admittedly owned by one Jagga Khan who died on 8-12-1970 without leaving any issue. About a year before his death, by a registered deed dated 17-12-1969, he sold the land to the petitioner. On 26-7-1971 the respondents filed a civil suit for the possession of the land in dispute as his collaterals. They alleged that Jagga Khan had not sold the land in dispute to the petitioner and that the sale deed was a forged document.
2. Earlier, respondent No,11 and some others had also instituted a suit for possession over the suit land on the ground that the petitioner was their tenant but was reluctant to hand over its possession to them. Jagga Khan was made a party to the suit but he died during its pendency.
3. The trial Court tried the two suits together. It decreed both suits, holding, so far as the sale-deed of 16-12-1969, was concerned that it was without consideration. From the judgment of the learned trial Court the petitioner filed an appeal in so far as the suit of respondents Nos. 1 to 10 was concerned. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court with the finding that there was no reason why the genuineness of the registered sale deed should not have been assumed. From the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge respondents Nos.1 to 10 filed a second appeal in the High Court. A learned Single Judge accepted the appeal, after restoring the finding of the trial Court that the sale was without consideration. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. In support of this petition it is contended that the question whether the sale in favour of the petitioner was with or without consideration was one of fact and it was not available to the High Court to reopen the finding of the first appellate Court in second appeal. Apart from that, it had overlooked the statement made by Jagga Khan himself which he made on 22-5-1970 in the suit filed by respondent No,11 and some others wherein he had clearly stated that he had sold the land to the petitioner. No question was asked from him whether he had received any consideration. In view of this position the finding of the High Court that the sale was without consideration was not sustainable.
5. The contentions raised in support of this petition need examination. Leave to appeal is granted.