Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 2190 2016 SLD 2190 2016 YLR 565
Lahore High Court
R.S.A. No. 155 of 2010, heard on 15-10-2014.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Ali Raza Khan for Appellant. Ahmad Raza Malik for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD BASHIR

VS

. GOHAR NASEEM

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 78---Suit for specific performance of contract---Illiterate executant of document---Document, proof of---Scope---Sale of property in case of contract would take effect in the terms settled therein between the parties---Agreement to sell would not itself create any interest or charge and onus would lie on the beneficiary to prove the same---Stamp vendor was not produced in witness box in the present case---Agreement was not scribed by a license holder deed writer rather same was drafted by an advocate---Advocate could not be treated at par with Petition Writer and his deposition would have no evidentiary value for not having produced his register for examination of court---Advocate was not bound to keep any such record and such a writer could not be treated as a licensed Petition Writer who maintained a register with page marking and entries were carried with serial numbers and dates---Statement of advocate was of no help to the plaintiff---Defendant was an illiterate person---Where document was allegedly executed by an illiterate person the beneficiary of said document was bound to establish by satisfactory and strong evidence that not only the document had been executed by said person but also that such person had fully understood the contents of such document---Impugned agreement to sell had not been read over to the executant after its writing---Witnesses of plaintiff were not consistent with regard to the venue where transaction was settled---Such contradictions could not be considered to be of minor nature but same was on material point---Evidence available on record was not sufficient to prove the valid execution of agreement to sell---Execution of document was to be proved by its beneficiary---Execution of document would not mean mere signing or putting thumb impression but something more than signing or putting thumb impression by the executant---Plaintiff was bound to prove that thumb mark was made in the presence of marginal witnesses of agreement to sell which was read over and also understood by the vendor---Identification of executant of document should also be…
🔒
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