| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2771 2013 SLD 2771 2013 YLR 1952 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision Petition No. 311-P of 2013, decided on 30th April, 2013
SHAH, JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J
Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Petitioner.
Respondents. Nemo being motion case
Civil Revision Petition No. 311-P of 2013, decided on 30th April, 2013
SHAH, JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J
Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Petitioner.
Respondents. Nemo being motion case
Mst. HAMSHIDA
VS
UMAR SHER and others
Law:
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42, 54 & 55---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss.17 & 49---Suit for declaration---Sale deed---Burden of proof---Contentions of plaintiff were that predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was her real sister who sold the suit property to her for sale consideration of Rs. 21,000 vide unregistered sale deed and the possession was delivered to her and defendants had no right to get attested inheritance mutation in their favour---Suit was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Plaintiff being beneficiary of the unregistered sale deed was duty bound to prove such deed beyond any doubt with cogent and conclusive oral and documentary evidence---Perusal of evidence produced by the plaintiff showed that she had failed to discharge her burden through cogent, conclusive and trustworthy oral or documentary evidence--Nothing was available on record to show that the plaintiff was entered in the revenue record as owner in possession of the suit property through sale and according to fard jamabandi the name of the plaintiff-petitioner was recorded as co-sharer in the suit property and as per Khasra girdawari there was no entry of un-registered deed which revealed that she was not in possession of suit property as exclusive owner---Sister of the plaintiff while appearing in the witness box stated in her cross-examination that her sister had not transferred her share through mutation or any other way to any of her sisters and she was marginal witness of the unregistered deed and stated that she had thumb-impressed the said deed herself and in her presence, her sister and two other male witnesses had thumb-impressed the same---Said witness in her cross-examination deposed that no male witness had impressed his thumb-mark over the unregistered sale deed; that her sister was born in the year, 1947 and deed was executed in the year, 1962 and at that time the age of her sister was 14/15 years---Sale deed exceeding sale consideration of 99 rupees was compulsorily registerable under S.17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and if the same was unregistered then same did not confer any right upon the person in whose favour it was executed under…
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