2008 PLP 642 (SCMR)

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.

The petitioners seek leave to appeal from judgment, dated 21-11-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.1446 of 1987.

2. The suit-land measuring 27 Kanals, 5 Marlas was mortgaged, as back as in the year 1892-93, by Rahim Bakhsh, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners, in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Subsequently, in 1916-17, late Rahim Bakhsh created an additional charge of mortgage on suit-land to the extent of 19 Kanals and 6 Marlas, in favour of Makha, Sirajuddin and Karim Bakhsh. The respondents instituted on 13-3-1970 a civil suit for declaration that the suit-land having not been redeemed within a period of 60 years, they had become its owners by operation of law and on account of foreclosure of right of redemption of the petitioners. The suit of the respondents was decreed, by the Civil Judge, Sialkot, by judgment and decree dated 13-5-1975, to the extent of 3 Kanals and 10 Marlas. Therefore, the respondents preferred an appeal thereagainst which was allowed by the District Judge, Sialkot, by judgment and decree, dated 18-6-1984. Consequently, the suit of the respondents was decreed in toto. The petitioners, felt aggrieved and filed Civil Revision No.1446 of 1987 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 21-11-2000. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended' that although the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had mortgaged the suit-land measuring 27 Kanals and 5 Marlas of land, but subsequently another mortgage of 19 Kanals and 6 Marlas was also made by him in the year 1916-17, in favour of Makha, Sirajuddin and Karim Bakhsh. Therefore, the first Appellate Court as High Court had acted illegally in decreeing the suit of the respondents in toto disregarding the legal effect of the subsequent mortgage of the suit property.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and have also gone through the record. We find that the first Appellate Court as well as the High Court after proper appreciation of evidence on record came to a definite conclusion that the land measuring 27 Kanals and 5 Marlas had been mortgaged by late Rahim Bakhsh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents as back as in 1892-93 which was never redeemed. Therefore, the respondents had become owners of the suit property by efflux of time upon the foreclosure of the right of the petitioners to redeem the suit-land. It appears to us that the petitioners did not bother to challenge the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the first appellate Court as well as by the High Court based on proper appreciation of evidence, do not call for interference. We do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./U-35/SC Petition dismissed.