Mst. REHMAT BIBI vs SHAHZAD WAHEED and another
This civil appeal arose from a suit for declaration filed by the appellant, Mst. Rehmat Bibi, seeking to challenge a registered sale deed dated 9-11-1968 regarding a property in Lahore. The appellant contended that she, an illiterate pardanashin lady, intended to mortgage the property rather than sell it, and that the deed was fraudulently executed without independent advice. The trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court in revision concurrently dismissed her claim, finding the transaction to be a valid sale. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the transaction was indeed a mortgage or a sale given the appellant's status. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were justified. The evidence demonstrated that the deed was executed at the appellant's residence, thumb-marked by her, and witnessed by her son, with the consideration paid in the presence of the Registrar. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that no fiduciary relationship existed to invalidate the transaction.
- Does the absence of independent advice for an illiterate pardanashin lady automatically invalidate a registered sale deed?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the nature of a property transaction?
- What evidence is sufficient to establish the validity of a sale deed executed by an illiterate pardanashin lady?
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances.
1. Relevant facts are that the appellant filed a suit for a declaration on 14-4-1983 that a portion of the house No,S.XLVI-6-S-2/A(39)/40) situate at Copal Nagar, Gulberg Scheme No,3, Lahore was intended to be mortgaged by her in favour of the respondent No,1 which was shown as sold vide registered deed dated 9-11-1968 fraudulently. After recording of the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court/Civil Judge, Lahore dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16-10-1985. The appellant's first appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 12-7-1988 and her revision petition by a learned Judge of the High Court on 31-8- 1988. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to examine whether she being illiterate pardanashin lady, the transaction was a mortgage or sale.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant had intended to mortgage the house and the registered sale-deed was fraudulently got registered. The lady had had no independent advice.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that all the three Courts have found that the appellant had sold the house and sale-deed was validly executed and registered.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record we find that the document was executed at the appellant's house. It was thumb-marked by her and witnessed by her son Rchmatullah P.W.3. At the time of the registration, the appellant had appeared and accepted earlier receipt of Rs, 2,000 and the balance of Rs,3,750 was paid to her before the Registrar. It was thumb-marked by her. The vendee did not stand in any fiduciary relationship with her and the appellant had executed the deed in her house in the presence of her son. In the circumstances we do not find any justification to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the three Courts below. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances the parties are left to hear their own costs.
Cited by 2 cases
- Dr. IJAZ AHMED vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others 2015 YLR 129
- Dr. Ijaz Ahmed vs Additional District Judge, etc 2015 C.L.R. 20