Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs Mistry SIRAJ DIN and 8 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over property ejectment proceedings. The petitioner, facing an ejectment application, claimed that the respondents' predecessor-in-interest had entered into an agreement to sell the disputed property through an attorney, a claim previously asserted in a separate suit for specific performance. All lower courts concurrently found that the alleged agreement to sell was forged and rejected the petitioner's defense. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the attorney had admitted to the execution of the agreement, relying on a photocopy of a statement. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner failed to produce a certified copy of the relevant statement from the ejectment proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the attorney had consistently denied the execution of the agreement, asserting that his signature was fraudulently traced and the document was forged. Finding concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that there was no valid ground for interference and refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the finality of the factual determinations regarding the forgery of the agreement.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the authenticity of a document?
- Is a photocopy of a statement sufficient to establish an admission of the execution of an agreement to sell?
- Does an allegation of a forged agreement to sell constitute a valid defense in ejectment proceedings when previously rejected by lower courts?
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby the regular second appeal filed by him was dismissed.
2. The background of this case is a chequered one. The respondents predecessor-in-interest had filed application for ejectment of the petitioner who had taken the defence that the respondents' predecessor-in-interest had agreed to sell the disputed property through her attorney. Even a suit for specific performance of the agreement had been filed by the petitioner. However, all the Courts have found that the agreement was forged and rejected the plea of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the attorney of the respondents' predecessor-in-interest had admitted the execution of the agreement and in this regard made reference to a photo copy of the statement alleged to have been made by the said attorney in a suit for specific performance. The petitioner has not filed the certified copy of the statement of the attorney recorded in the ejectment case. Even in the statement of Siraj Din referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which was made in the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner, no admission has been made that he had executed an agreement for sale of the property on behalf of Mst. Ghulam Fatima, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. His plea was that his signature had been traced fraudulently and the contents of the agreement are false and forged. There is a concurrent finding of fact by all the Courts below which cannot be disturbed nor any valid ground for interference has been made out. We refuse to grant leave.