Mst. SARDARAN and others vs SULEMAN and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition against concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts. The dispute concerns the inheritance of land formerly owned by Meharban, who died during the partition of the sub-continent. The petitioners, successors of Meharban's paternal aunt, Mst. Jainan, claimed the property based on a mutation sanctioned in her favor. Conversely, the respondents, Suleman and Mst. Bashiran Bibi, successfully sued for a declaration that they were the rightful heirs, being the son and widow of the deceased, respectively. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their concurrent findings regarding the respondents' status as legal heirs and the rejection of additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact, when supported by evidence and free from material error, are not subject to interference in revision or leave to appeal proceedings.
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be challenged in a revision petition if there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court refuse an application to produce additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a document produced from a party's own possession without official certification admissible as additional evidence?
- Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment dated 3-10-2001 of the Lahore High Court through which revision petition filed by the petitioners to challenge concurrent findings of facts of the two Courts below has been dismissed.
2. The dispute relates to inheritance of Meharban son of Imam Din. He died in the riots, during partition of the sub-continent. He had land in India in respect of which claim was filed by Mst.
Jainan deceased predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners who was his paternal aunt ({{URDU TEXT}}). It was verified against which the land in dispute was mutated in favour of Mst.
Jainan through Mutation No,74 dated 17-1-1957 from entries of which it appears that she was shown to be widow of Meharban. Suleman and Mst. Bashiran Bibi respondents filed civil suit in the year 1976 for declaration that they being son and widow of Meharban were entitled to inherit his property as such the said mutation sanctioned in favour of Mst. Jainan as paternal aunt {{URDU TEXT}} was ineffective against their rights. Evidence was led by both the parties.
3. The trial Court after considering the evidence elaborately through judgment dated 31-7-1993 decreed the suit of the respondents. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the First Appellate Court through judgment dated 14-11-1993 against which revision petition filed by them has also been dismissed through judgment dated 3-10-2001 impugned in this petition. A review petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court on 22-10-2001. In this petition, the legality of the said order has, also been sought to be challenged.
4. Before the First Appellant Court, the petitioners filed an application under Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C.
For permission to produce additional evidence in the form of copy of the national identification form of Mst. Bashiran, Muhammad Ramzan and Abdul Ghafoor which was dismissed on the ground that entries on the said form had been mutilated and certain matters were not clear. It was not certified copy of the said form issued by the concerned department but was a document A produced by the petitioners from their own possession, therefore, such a document could not be allowed to be produced in evidence which had no authenticity.
5. The findings of facts recorded by all the Courts below against the petitioners that Suleman was son of Meharban and Mst. Bashiran his widow, have not been shown to have suffered from misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.