1929 (12) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he sum of Rs. 1,200. The mortgagees went into possession, and it was a term of the mortgage that the mortgagers would not be competent to redeem the mortgaged premises until after 20 years from the date of the mortgage. 3. About the year 1891, Miran Bakhsh transferred his interest to Wali Mohammad, Ali Mohammad, and Mohammad Bakhsh, sons of Dare Khan, all named in the above-named genealogical tables, and they went into possession after their purchase. 4. It is alleged by the defendants that the mortgagors Mohammad Bakhsh and Sultan sold their equity of redemption about the year 1891 or 1892 to defendant 3, and the said Ali Mohammad and Mohammad Bakhsh for Rs. 1,200 and Miran Bakhsh released the mortgaged premises to them. 5. The pl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00 to Miran Baksh. The appellant Wali Mohammad gave evidence and called witnesses to prove the execution of the receipt, but both the trial and the appellate Court held that the receipt had not been proved. The appellants' case further was that on the sale there was mutation in favour of Wali Mohammad and his brothers, but that the mutation records had been burnt during the Gujranwala riots in the Punjab in 1919. They, however, relied on a number of entries in the Re-cord-of-Rights prepared under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, being Act 17 of 1887, and they contended that these entries recognized the appellants or their predecessors as the owners of these properties and that such entries duly made under Section 44 of the said Act are to b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ult to disentangle, but the following propositions are clearly established: (1) There is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of facts, however gross the error may seem to be : see Durga Choudrain v. Jawalir Singh Choudhri [189l] 18 Cal. 23 at p. 127 (of 17 I. A.) (2) ]The proper legal effect of a proved fact is essentially a question of law, but the question whether a fact has been proved when evidence for and against has been properly admitted is necessarily a pure question of fact : Nafar v. Shukur A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 92 at p. 187 (of 45. I.A.), (3) Where the question to be decided is one of fact, it does not involve an issue of law merely because documents which were not instruments of title or ot....