| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 678 2013 SLD 678 2013 CLC 419 |
Sindh High Court
Civil Revision No.39 of 2006, decision dated: 19-10-2012
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J
Civil Revision No.39 of 2006, decision dated: 19-10-2012
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J
Syed AYOOB ALI SHAH--ApplicantvsMst. RABIA BEGUM
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XLI,R.31
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XLI,R.31
Law: Registration Act, 1908
Section: 17,60
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XLI, R. 31---Findings of Trial Court, setting aside of---Principle---Where Appellate Court had to reverse findings of Trial Court, then same could be done only after meeting with reasoning of Trial Court. PLD 1969 SC 617 and 2003 MLD 1280 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 120---Sale---Proof---Onus to prove---Buyer is under an obligation to prove positive assertion that money has been paid by producing receipts, pay orders, cheques etc. PLD 1986 SC 519 rel. (c) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)--- ----Ss. 17 & 60---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.90---Registered document---Presumption---Scope---Presumption attached to registered document goes on to prove merely extent of document having been registered but it is not a conclusive proof that the same has been executed by a particular person when execution thereof is denied by such person. Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Sardar Begum 1989 SCMR 704 and Lt. Muhammad Sohail Anjum Khan v. Abdul Rasheed Khan 2003 MLD 1095 rel. (d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.72 & 90---Suit for declaration and injunction---Execution of registered gift deed---Proof---Pardahnashin lady---Presumption---Plaintiff filed suit on the plea that she was Pardah-observing lady who never appeared before Sub-Registrar and gift deed was result of fraud---Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same---Validity---Privilege and entitlement that a Pardah-observing woman enjoyed were not available to plaintiff and hence it had become for her to prove fraud and she could not find her escape merely by mentioning that she was a Pardah-observing lady---Plaintiff might have been observant but the manner and spirit in which she attempted to utilize it, she was not entitled for such benefit as she had been executing such deeds in favour of her other son---Principles of Paradh-observing ladies were developed during earlier days when women-folks were subservient and they seldom used to come out of their houses and they were entirely dependent on male members and…
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