MUHAMMAD IQBAL and anothers vs HASSAN DIN and others
This appeal by leave arises from a civil dispute concerning the validity of a registered gift deed executed by Khair Din in favour of Mehraj Din on 30-9-1955. The original donor's son challenged the gift through a suit, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the first appellate court on the ground that delivery of possession had not been established, as the tenant was allegedly cultivating the land under the donor at the time of the gift. However, the Lahore High Court in second appeal reversed the concurrent findings, holding that the lower courts' reliance on revenue records was based on a gross misreading of evidence, since the revenue document showed the tenant only from 1957 onwards. The core legal question was whether the High Court rightly interfered with the concurrent findings of fact based on misreading of evidence regarding delivery of possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence and that delivery of possession was validly established. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on a gross misreading of evidence are open to interference and correction in second appeal.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact based on a misreading of revenue records can be set aside in second appeal?
- Is delivery of possession established when findings regarding a tenant's cultivating possession at the time of the gift are found to be based on a gross misreading of evidence?
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances:
1. Khair Din owned some land. He had a son namely Jalal Din and a daughter Mst. Begum Bibi. He gifted the land in favour of his daughter's husband named Mehraj Din through a gift deed dated 30-9-1955 registered on 1-10-1955. Khair Din died on 14-1-1956. On 24-4-1962 Jalal Din son of the deceased donor filed a suit challenging the gift. The suit was decreed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore on 24-11-1964. The donee Mehraj Din having died his heirs filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge , Lahore on 24-11-1964. Both the Courts had held that possession of the gifted land had not been delivered by the donor to the donee. The heirs of the donee Mehraj Din filed R.SA. No, 23 of 1966 in the Lahore High Court. A learned Judge found that the finding that possession had not been delivered was based on misreading of evidence on the record. He allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 24-1-1990. Hence this appeal by the heirs of the plaintiff Jalal Din who has died in the meanwhile.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Judge in the High Court fell in error in setting aside the finding of fact that no delivery of possession of the land gifted had taken place. He has taken us through the record.
3. Both the learned trial and the first appellate Court had recorded the finding that on the date of gift Muhammad Sadiq was cultivating the land as tenant under the donor whereas some portion of the land was being cultivated by Siraj Din i.e, the joint owner of the land. On this assumption they proceeded to record the finding that delivery of possession of the land under the gift could only be made by asking Muhammad Sadiq the tenant to attorney to the donee which having not been done or proved as such the delivery of possession of land under the gift was not established. The learned Judge in the High Court observed that "the finding that Muhammad Sadiq was in cultivating possession of land as tenant under the donor has been recorded on the strength of Exh.P1 copy of Khasra Girdawari. As observed above, the gift deed was executed on 30-9-1955 and registered on 1-10-1955. From the perusal of Exh. P1 i.e, the Khasra Girdawari on which the findings are based, it is manifest that Muhammad Sadiq has been shown as tenant-at-will since 1957. In this view of the matter, the findings of the two Courts below that Muhammad Sadiq was in cultivating possession of a part of land alongwith Siraj Din the joint owner, as tenant of donor at the date of gift, is clearly based on gross misreading of this document. Learned counsel for respondent No,1/plaintiff when questioned as to how the findings of the two Courts below as based on entries of this document could be supported by him, had no answer". Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants to show as to how the learned Judge was in error. We have also seen the document and the other evidence brought on the record. We find that the learned Judge had examined the evidence in depth and minutely and reached the sound and just decision that in the circumstances delivery of possession had taken place in accordance with law. No interference is called for. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.