2008 PLP 85 (SCMR)

RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.

This petition is directed against Sindh High Court judgment, dated 24-8-2006 whereby petitioners' civil revision against concurrent findings of fact arising out of a suit filed by their predecessors-in-interest Muhammad Ishaq and Abdul Shakoor (since dead and survived by the legal heirs) for declaration, cancellation of documents and permanent injunction against the respondents was dismissed.

2. They claimed to have purchased the property in suit measuring 216 square yards from respondent No.1 for consideration of Rs.5,000 in 1970. It was averred in the plaint that since 1970 they remained in physical and peaceful possession of the property in suit and enjoyed it in equal shares as the consideration was shared by both of them equally. They raised Pakka construction, including boundary wall, from their own sources and obtained electricity connection in the premises. On or about 5-2-1989, respondent No.1 returned back to Karachi and started harassing and pressuring them with a view to unlawfully dispossess them of the property and deprive them of their ownership right. Petitioners, therefore, on 8-2-1989 filed suit No.233 of 1989 for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Karachi-South, who directed the parties to maintain status quo. In the said suit, respondent No.1 produced a lease deed dated 5-3-1983 executed by respondent No.2 in his favour, which, according to the petitioners, was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. The said respondent also produced two alleged undertakings by both the petitioners dated 25-12-1969 and 11-1-1970 respectively raising no objection to the grant of lease in favour of respondent No.1 for 99 years, which were challenged as forged, concocted and bogus documents. On the basis of lease deed in his favour, respondent No.1 filed two separate rent cases against both the petitioners seeking their eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. Petitioners claiming to be the owners of the property in suit and in an exclusive possession thereof prayed for cancellation of lease deed dated 5-3-1983 and undertakings purportedly executed by them, declaration of ownership with exclusive possession and permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them from acting upon the lease deed and dispossessing or evicting them from the property in suit.

3. The suit was hotly contested. Both the parties adduced evidence. Issues were settled. In the ultimate analysis, petitioners' suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Petitioners challenged the judgment and decree in appeal but without any success. Consequently, they assailed concurrent findings of fact before the High Court but their civil revision has been dismissed, hence this petition for leave to appeal.

4. We have heard Chaudhry Iftikhar Ahmad, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and gone through the entire record as well as the impugned judgment.

5. There are concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the petitioners failed to establish the purchase of the property in suit from respondent No.1, as alleged. Indeed, it was established on record that respondent No.1 had obtained a registered lease deed from respondent No.2 as far back as 5-3-1983. Since the petitioners miserably failed to establish their right, interest and title to the property in suit and even the payment of consideration to the vendor, High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, declined to interfere with the findings of fact, based on correct and careful analysis and appraisal of the evidence. The fact that the petitioners raised their claim of ownership after the passage of more than 25 years itself is indicative of the fact that they had no legal right and title to the property in suit.

6. In our considered opinion, no ground for interference with the findings of fact and grant of leave is made out. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M-216/SC Petition dismissed.