1. GHULAM SAFAR SHAH.--This petition for leave to appeal, which is directed against the judgment of Peshawar High Court, dated 11-5-1977, arises in the following circumstances to :--- Sardar Muhammad Ashraf, who is a respondent in this case, had claimed in the declaration filed by Dim under Martial Law Regulation 115, 2000 produce index units on the pound that he owned a tractor and on that account under para. 8(2) of the said Regulation, his said claim was justified.
2. The facts of the case, however, are that the tractor in question was jointly purchased by one Mst.
3. Begum Jan, Sardar Mahboob Ilahi Khan and Sardar Muhammad Aahraf. But it was registered on 13-9-1967 in the name of S9rdar Muhammad Adam, Advocate, who is son of Muhammad Ashraf Khan. Upon theme facts, the learned Member, Federal Land Commission, proceeded to examine the claim of Muhammad Ashraf Khan. But he was net impressed and consequently disallowed his claim. Being aggrieved, Muhammad Ashraf Khan went to the High Court fn writ petition in which he succeeded. And hence this petition for leave to appeal against the Impugned judgment of High Court.
4. The order of learned Member, Federal Land Commission would show that he was principally influenced by the fact that the tractor in question had been registered in the name of Muhammad Aslam, Advocate. Proceeding from these premises, he disregarded the fact that the tractor had been purchase by Mst. Begum Jan, Sardar Mahboob Ilahi and Sardar Muhammad Ashraf as also that Sardar Muhammad Aslam, though he had actually taken the delivery of tractor from the sellers, bad been given by the said three persons a special power-of-attorney for that purpose. In the High Court all this evidence was taken into consideration and consequently the finding reached was that Sardar Muhammad Aahraf was the owner of the tractor. The High Court also took note of the fact that the said three purchasers bad, vide mutation No. 780, attested on 14-5-1966, mortgaged their land with Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan as security for the price of tractor.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner has, however, argued that the finding of fact recorded by the learned Member, Federal Land Commission was conclusive and the same should rot have been interfered with by the High Court. There is no force in this contention. The order of learned Member, Federal Land Commission says that "the main question for determination is as to in whose name the tractor was registered" From this premise, which was evidently misconceived, the learned Member found no difficulty to hold that since the tractor had been registered in the name of Muhammad Aslam, he alone would be its owner. It seems, however, that. The learned Member had failed to take into consideration all the other evidence of which notice was taken in the High Court.
6. And so it cannot be argued that the finding recorded by him was conclusive. On the contrary, in the High Court all these pieces of evidence were taken into consideration before reaching the; impugned conclusion with which we respectfully agree.
7. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.