livelawpk.com - Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts are generally immune ---

Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts are generally immune from Interference unless Procedural Errors or Legal Defects are Evident --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

1 month
59

Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts are generally immune from Interference unless Procedural Errors or Legal Defects are Evident --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

Islamabad 21-11-2024: The Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, has dismissed a Civil Revision Petition in the case of Mst. Ayesha Vs. Mst. Shama, etc. (Civil Revision No. 1581-D of 2019), upholding the concurrent findings of the lower Courts. Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain presided over the hearing and delivered the judgment, reinforcing critical legal principles on property transactions, fraud, and procedural limitations.

The Petitioner, Mst. Ayesha, filed the suit seeking cancellation of Mutation No. 54, dated 31st March 1991, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. She claimed that she never executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favor of her son, Allah Ditta (Respondent No. 3), and that the impugned mutation transferring the property to her son’s wife (Respondent No. 1) was fraudulent. The petitioner also challenged subsequent transactions involving the property.

The trial and appellate Courts dismissed the petitioner’s claims, citing lack of evidence and procedural lapses. This prompted the petitioner to file a civil revision before the Lahore High Court.

The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming the decisions of the lower Courts and emphasizing the following legal principles:

Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain observed significant inconsistencies in the petitioner’s claims. While the pleadings alleged fraud in executing the GPA, her testimony admitted its execution and subsequent cancellation. The Court highlighted the legal maxim “Allegans Contraria Non Est Audiendus” (a person alleging contradictory things is not to be heard).

Referencing the case Muhammad Bashir Vs. Mst. Sattar Bibi (PLD 1995 Lahore 321), the Court noted that fraudulent documents are generally acted upon promptly. The alleged fraudulent GPA, executed in 1987 and acted upon in 1991, did not align with this presumption.

The Court emphasized that under Articles 91 and 92 of the Limitation Act, 1908, suits for cancellation of mutations must be filed within three years. The petitioner, who revoked the GPA in 2003, failed to act until 2014, rendering her claim time-barred.

Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain reiterated that Revisional Courts are reluctant to interfere with concurrent findings unless gross illegality or misreading of evidence is evident. The petitioner failed to substantiate such errors in the present case.

The Court found that the petitioner’s prolonged silence and inaction indicated tacit consent to the transactions. Her objections arose only after her son divorced Respondent No. 1, suggesting ulterior motives.

This judgment reinforces the importance of consistency in pleadings and evidence, timely action in legal disputes, and the significance of limitation laws. It also serves as a cautionary tale for parties relying on claims of fraud without substantive proof or prompt action.

The case further solidifies the principle that concurrent findings of lower Courts are generally immune from interference unless procedural errors or legal defects are evident.