1971 PLP 697 (SCMR)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑--Property No. S. W. III.13.S.2 situated in Ram Nagar, Lahore, was transferred in equal shares to Fazal Hussain and Iftikhar Hussain, who are real brothers. By a deed of association, which was approved by the Deputy Settlement Com missioner on the 16th of August 1960, Fazal Hussain surrendered all his rights in favour of his relation, Sajjad Hussain, who was living in this very house but had not applied for its transfer. Later, it appears that another agreement of association was executed by both the brothers in favour of the petitioner, Mst. Zuhra Begum, by which they made over all their, rights in the house to her. This agreement was also approved by the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner on the 7th of October 1960, and a P. T. O. in pursuance thereof was issued in favour of Mst. Zuhra Begum. These conflict ing deeds of association gave rise to a dispute over the half portion of the house, which had been given to Sajjad Hussain under the deed of association executed by Fazal Hussain in his favour. The matter was finally decided by Mr. Muhammad Saeeduzzaman, Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated the 31st of March 1964, whereby he held that Fazal Hussain had in good faith surrendered all his rights in half of the house to Sajjad Hussain, who was, therefore, a valid transferee to that extent. The petitioner, Zuhra Begum, challenged this order in writ jurisdiction in the High Court of West Pakistan, and having failed there, she has applied to this Court for special leave to appeal. The learned Single Judge as well as the Letters Patent Bench have rightly held that the matter was concluded by a finding of fact reached by the Settlement Commissioner on the evidence duly placed before him that Fazal Hussain had executed a deed of association in favour of Sajjad Hussain. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this deed of association was procured by fraud and misrepresentation, which was manifest from certain documentary evidence, which the petitioner had adduced in the High Court but which was not taken note of for the reason that the same had not been produced before the Settlement authorities. The High Court, was not the proper forum for investigating into the genuineness of tile aforesaid deed of association, and had rightly refused in land itself into that inquiry. If the petitioner considers that the deed of association in favour of Sajad Hussain was the result of fraud and mis representation, she may, if so advised, approach the Settlement authorities to examine that allegation. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. Muhammad Saeed‑uz‑Zaman, Settlement Commissioner, was not competently invested with revisional powers, which he exercised in favour of Sajjad Hussain, by accepting his revision petition and by transferring half portion of the house to him. Whether or not Mr. Muhammad Saeed‑uz‑Zaman had the revisional powers on the date on which he passed the orders, is a question of fact which does not seem to have been agitated before him, nor does it appear to have been pressed in the High Court. It cannot be allowed to be urged for the first time in this Court. The petition is dismissed in limine. Leave refused.