Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 468 2006 SLD 468 2006 PLD 58
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 430 of 2003, heard on 23rd January, 2006
SALIM KHAN, J
Abdul Kabir for Petitioner. Javed A. Khan for
Respondent

GHULAM SARWAR

VS

SALEH MUHAMMAD

Law: North West Frontier Province Preemption Act, (X of 1987)

Section: 6,13,31,32

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 85(5)

(a) North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)---- --Ss. 6, 13, 31 & 32---Suit for pre-emption---Superior right of pre-emption---Making of Talbs--- Plaintiff, who claimed to be Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar, filed suit for pre-emption in respect of suit­land---Suit was decreed by trial court on payment of Rs.5 lacs as mentioned in registered sale-deed, but appellate Court set aside and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed suit---Validity---Superior right of pre-emption of plaintiff in respect of suit-land was admitted---Evidence of plaintiff and his witnesses regarding making of Talb-e-Muwathibat, was consistent---Not only the place of Majlis where said demand was made, but also the date and time of Majlis had been shown by all witnesses---Suit was filed within time---Defendant vendee could not prove that plaintiff was estopped by his own conduct or he had waived his right---Plaintiff had also sent notice of Talb-e-Ishhad and filed suit within fourteen days from obtaining knowledge about sale of suit-land and making of Talb-e-Muwathibat---Trial Court, in circumstances had rightly and properly found that Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad were duly made by plaintiff---Evidence to that extent, had been misread by appellate court below---Plaintiff, who had superior right of pre-emption and made Talbs properly, had a cause of action and his suit was rightly decreed by the trial court---Appellate court was not justified to dismiss suit---High Court set aside and decree of appellate court in revision and restored those of the trial court. (b) Qanun-E-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 85(5)---Public document---Presumption of truth---Registered deed was a public document and presumption of truth was attached to it, but once controverted, person taking benefit out of the same had to prove its contents, specially the value of property mentioned, by independent evidence as presumption of truth to a public document, would not mean that contents of document in question were unquestionably true---Controversy regarding contents of such document, had to be resolved in the light of pro and contra evidence of the parties. (c) North-West…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492