Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.I,R.3,115

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.3---Suit for declaration---Property owned by two sisters in equal share---Sale of such property by both sisters through their attorney on basis of registered power of attorney---Suit by one sister challenging sale of such property to extent of her own share---Validity---Plaintiff-sister was not obliged to make her co-owner/sister as party to suit. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.118---Suit for declaration---Sale of suit property on basis of registered power of attorney alleged by plaintiff to be fraudulent---Burden of proof---Initial burden would lie on plaintiff to prove execution of power of attorney to be result of fraud and that suit sale made on its basis was of no legal effect---Strong piece of evidence would be required to rebut registered power of attorney Illustration. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Concurrent findings of fact could not be disturbed in exercise of such jurisdiction. Ajmal Khan Kasi for Petitioners. Abdul Rauf Lehri for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 7th June, 2012. JUDGMENT MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.--- The Instant revision petition was filed by the petitioner Malik Muhammad Noor, with a prayer that the judgment dated 21st February, 2009 of Senior Civil Judge-II, Quetta, whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1 was decreed, and the judgment dated 17th June, 2009 of Additional District Judge-III, Quetta, whereby his appeal was declined, be set aside and the suit be dismissed. It was contended that both the courts below failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the material on the record, and gave decision without assigning any reason, which failed to fulfil the legal requirements. The petitioner further contended that the suit was barred by time, but the issue to the effect was not decided properly. Furthermore, this legal aspect of the case was overlooked by the courts below that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was out of the possession, therefore, without seeking consequential relief of possession, the suit for…

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