MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and anothers vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning a suit for declaration and specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were bona fide purchasers for value without notice, given the conflicting claims regarding the execution of sale documents and the validity of a receipt and power of attorney relied upon by the petitioners. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court, which had all decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The Court held that the petitioners failed to substantiate the execution of the documents they relied upon, noting significant discrepancies, including a receipt dated prior to the alleged agreement and an Oath Commissioner's stamp dated well after the alleged execution, which indicated fraud and fabrication. The key principle laid down is that where concurrent findings of fact are based on a proper appreciation of evidence and no legal infirmity is demonstrated, the appellate court will not interfere with the determination of the lower courts.
- Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact where no legal infirmity is demonstrated?
- Does the reliance on forged or fabricated documents by a party in a land dispute invalidate their claim of being a bona fide purchaser?
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 8-12-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed Civil Revision No,1531-D of 1985 filed by the petitioners maintaining the concurrent findings of the two Courts below.
2. ' Facts briefly are that respondent No,1 filed on 31-7-1973 a suit for declaration with consequential relief and as an alternative prayer claimed a decree for specific performance of the contract executed by respondent No,2 Karam Din whereby land measuring 9 Marlas out of Khasra No,1103 was sold for a consideration of Rs,20,000 and also delivery of its possession. It was also averred that respondent No,2, during the pendency of the above suit, sold the disputed land to the petitioners, as such they were also impleaded as defendants. The aforesaid suit was resisted by the defendants/petitioners as they claimed that they were the bona fide purchasers of the land in dispute for value without notice and banked upon receipt Exh.D.1 dated 22-7-1973 claiming that the sale had already been executed (Exh.D.3) on 6-8-1973. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed, parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court through its judgment dated, 1-11-1978 decreed the suit.
3. ' The petitioners filed an appeal assailing the aforesaid judgment, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal, vide his judgment dated 30-6-1985. Revision Petition No,1531-D of 1985 filed by the petitioners also met the same fate as the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, after discussing the entire evidence, upheld the determination of the Courts below through his judgment dated 8-122000, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the entire material placed on record with their assistance. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of power of attorney executed in favour of respondent No,2 Karam Din by his brothers and sisters on 17-7-1973, said Karam Din executed a receipt Exh.D.1 on 22-7-1973 and sold the entire land to the petitioners for a consideration of Rs,20,000, out of which a sum of Rs,500 was received by him as earnest money, is devoid of any force. The date of completion of the sale, according to the receipt, was 4-8-1973 but since the same was not completed by the said date, another agreement (Exh.D.2) was executed by said Karam Din on 4-8- 1973, according to which, he received another sum of Rs,9,000. Sale, according to the petitioners, was ultimately concluded and registered vide Exh.D.3 on 6-8-1973. The execution of aforesaid documents has not been substantiated on record. Karam Din, who appeared in the witness-box, had totally denied the execution of receipt Exh.D.1. We fail to understand that the petitioners are placing much reliance on Exh.D.1, a receipt executed on 22-7-1973, but they have not referred to the agreement which, according to them, was executed on 4-8-1973. It would certainly amount to putting cart before the horse as the receipt was executed earlier on the basis of which the amount was received by Karam Din through Exh.D.1 and the agreement was executed later on. On the contrary, the execution of agreement by the respondent side has been proved through the testimony of scribe and marginal witness. Much reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the alleged written statement submitted by respondent No,2 Karam Din which he totally disowned.
5. Even in the said alleged written statement, no mention of the agreement had been made. Said Karam Din on entering the witness-box had completely repudiated the alleged submission of written statement by him. Even otherwise Exh.D.1 appears to be a forged and fabricated document.
6. It is alleged that it was written by Muhammad Siddique D.W.1, the special attorney of Karam Din.
7. However, the latter had denied execution of any special power of attorney in his favour. It is further alleged to be executed on 22-7-1973 but the scamp of the Oath Commissioner thereon is of 19-9- 1973 which speaks volumes of fraud and fabrication. The findings of both the Courts below on the above issue have been maintained by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the, impugned judgment dated 8-12-2000 and the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court.
8. ' Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, the present petition being without any force is hereby dismissed and leave declined.