FATEH MUHAMMAD vs GHULAM MUSTAFA and 4 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil suit challenging the validity of a sale-deed and a subsequent mutation, which the petitioner alleged were forged and fictitious. The petitioner further contended that the sale violated paragraph 24(4) of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972, arguing that the vendees lacked the necessary qualifications to acquire the land. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the District Judge affirmed this decision on appeal. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's civil revision, upholding the concurrent findings of fact. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner reiterated that the lower courts failed to properly address the alleged violation of Martial Law Regulation 115 and ignored evidence regarding the separate maintenance of revenue records. The Supreme Court examined the record and found no evidence of misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were sound and dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal error justifying interference with the lower courts' findings.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does a sale of land violating paragraph 24(4) of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 automatically render the transaction void?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against a judgment in civil revision where no legal error is demonstrated?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Paragraph 24(4), Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972
1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.-This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been preferred seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20-9-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in a civil revision.
2. ' The relevant facts are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration that the sale-deed dated 21-9- 1973 pertaining to land measuring 49 Kanals 9-1/2 Marlas allegedly executed by him, was forged and fictitious document and that the Mutation bearing No,250 dated 20-6-1976 sanctioned on the basis of said sale-deed, was void. It was pleaded that the sale being in violation of para 24(4) of M.L.R. 115 of 1972 was illegal. The suit was contested by the respondents and the learned trial Judge in the light of pleadings of the parties and the respective evidence produced by them, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 25-3-1989. The appeal preferred by the petitioner and the cross objection filed by the respondents were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar, vide judgment dated 27-6-1989. The petitioners while invoking revisional jurisdiction of the High Court challenged the concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below and the learned Judge in chambers in the High Court having discussed the evidence in detail, dismissed the revision petition through the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the pivotal question relating to the violation of para.24(4) of M.L.R. 115, was not properly attended to either by the Court of first instance or the Appellate Court and also by the High Court and the bundle of evidence available on record to show that the Revenue Record of Chak No,95 Fateh and Chak No,95 Fateh-Alif was being maintained separately was ignored. The learned counsel argued that admittedly the vendees were not equipped with the required qualification given in para. 24(4) of M.L.R. 115 to acquire a valid title in land by way of purchase in the village. Learned counsel, however, has not been able to show us that the findings of fact relating to the sale being in violation of para 24(4) M.L.R. 115, was the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence on record. The sole point raised by the petitioner before the High Court that the holding of the petitioner being less than the subsistence holding, he could only alienate the same in terms of para. 24(4) M.L.R. 115 to a person fulfilling the required qualification, did not find favour to the Court to have any substance.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record with his assistance, we have not been able to find outany defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence to challenge the concurrent findings of the three Courts on a question of fact and consequently, this petition fails which is dismissed accordingly. Leave is refused.