MUHAMMAD FAZAL vs KAURA through Legal Heirs, and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which set aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court regarding a suit for pre-emption. The petitioner had successfully challenged the sale of 96 Kanals of land in favour of the respondent, with the trial court decreeing the suit after finding that the respondent's claim of being a sitting tenant, based on Khasra Girdawari entries, lacked corroborative evidence. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, reversed these concurrent findings and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court was legally justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact and whether a solitary entry in the Khasra Girdawari, absent other supporting evidence, was sufficient to establish the respondent's possession and status as a tenant. The core legal issue involves the limits of revisional jurisdiction in disturbing concurrent findings of fact and the evidentiary value of isolated revenue records in pre-emption litigation.
- Was the High Court justified in setting aside concurrent findings of the lower courts in its revisional jurisdiction?
- Can a solitary entry in the Khasra Girdawari be relied upon to prove possession in the absence of other cogent evidence?
ORDER
1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Sale of land measuring 96 Kanals in favour of Kaura respondent through Mutation No, 14 attested on 21-11-1973 was pre-empted by the petitioner in Suit No, 233 of 1974 instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Rahimyarkhan.
2. ' The suit was contested by the defendants/vendees on the ground that plaintiff had waived his right of pre-emption and that the defendant/vendee had first right of pre-emption being the sitting tenant of the land sold before the same made in his favour. The learned trial Court decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and decreed the suit on payment of the sale consideration entered in the mutation. It was found that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari wherein part of the suit land was shown in possession of the respondent/vendees could not be relied upon in absence of any other cogent evidence. Appeal against the same was dismissed but the learned High Court vide impugned judgment set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below in revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
3. Leave is granted to consider the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that; firstly, whether the learned High Court was justified in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below, and secondly, whether the solitary entry in the Khasra Girdawari wherein respondent/vendees' are entered in possession of a part of the suit property, could have been relied upon in absence of any other evidence.