1972 PLP 433 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing a second appeal. This second appeal arose out of a suit filed for a declaration that the sale in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 herein of 21 kanals and 13 marlas of land situated in village Sujowali, Tehsil Pasrur, by a registered sale deed dated the 8th of January 1958, was void, as it was without any consideration and without legal necessity and the vendor was governed by custom The suit was filed by the brother of the vendor who claimed to by his reversioner. All the Courts below have found that the property was ancestral property qua the respondent herein and his brother, that they were governed by custom, that the sale was without legal necessity, and that payment of consideration had been proved only to the extent of Rs.1,451 as against the consideration of Rs. 4,000 mentioned in the deed. In second appeal, the learned Judge in the High Court felt himself bound by the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below which also appeared to him to have been arrived at correctly after an exhaustive review of the entire evidence on record. The vendee has now come up for special leave to appeal, and it is contended on his behalf that the finding as to the absence of legal necessity is based on non‑consideration of material evidence relating to the fact that the land sold had been ravished by floods and that the place at which the vendor wished to purchase lands, in substitution of the lands sold, out of the consideration money was the place of residence of his own sister. The petitioner also complains that the finding with regard to the non‑payment of the full consideration is clearly against the weight of evidence, as the Courts below had no reason to dis believe the endorsement on the back of the deed made by the Sub‑Registrar as to the passing of the consideration in his presence. We are not impressed by any one of these contentions, because, on the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the vendor was "a complete physical wreck and his naivety bordered on stupidity", some more evidence was necessary to establish that the consideration which passed before the Sub‑Registrar was actually received by the vendor. This factor has also a material bearing on the question of legal necessity. If such was the physical condition of the vendor, then it would certainly not have been an act of good management on his part to sell these lands for purchasing lands at another place nearly 200 miles away. His physical infirmity would not have permitted him to look after lands at such distant places. Apart from the land sold, the vendor had still a considerable area left in the village of Sujowali where he ordinarily resides. It is also not without significance that the petitioner had on an earlier occasion purchased certain lands from the same vendor and that, sale too was set aside after civil litigation. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that any ground had been made out for the setting aside of the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below by the High Court in second appeal. The second appeal was, in our view, rightly dismissed and we see no reason to interfere. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.