| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2873 2018 SLD 2873 2018 PLJ 1042 |
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 2715 of 2014, decision & hearing Dated: 25.04.2018.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Ghulam Farid Sanotra, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Sh. Sakhawat Ali, Advocate
C.R. No. 2715 of 2014, decision & hearing Dated: 25.04.2018.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Ghulam Farid Sanotra, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Sh. Sakhawat Ali, Advocate
MST. SURRAYA BIBI
VS
IMTIAZ AHMAD ETC.
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 17,79
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 115--Revisional jurisdiction--Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877)--Suit for declaration possession and cancellation of sale deed--Decreed--Appeal--Case was remanded--Suit was dismissed--Appeal Dismissed--Concurrent findings--Ingredients of transaction--Challenge to--It is sine qua non for a vendee to establish; firstly, that transaction was struck with a titleholder or a person having authority to create right; secondly it was settled against consideration, and thirdly such sale was accompanied by delivery of possession--Concurrent findings of Courts below cannot be disturbed by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction provided under Section 115 of Code, 1908 is not tenable as both s and decrees having been found to be result of misreading and non-reading of evidence as well as non-adherence to law applicable in this regard are not sustainable in eye of law--It is correct that normally this Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below, but when there is gross misreading and non-reading of evidence and patent violation of law is floating on surface of such concurrent findings, this Court cannot shut its eyes and is always under obligation to rectify error by interference in such like illegal findings. 2004 SCMR 1001 & 2006 SCMR 1238, ref. Onus to Prove-- ----Mere execution and registration of sale deed by itself do not furnish proof of aforenoted ingredients of transaction and whenever such document as well as transaction cited therein is questioned or denied, onus lies on beneficiary to prove both of these. Pleadings-- ----It is settled law that a party has to first assert facts and pleas in pleadings and then it can prove same through evidence--A party is not allowed under law to improve its case beyond what was originally setup in pleadings. Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984-- ----Arts. 17 and 79--Document--Financial obligation--Attestation of sale deed by identifier--Marginal witness--Violation of mandatory requirement--It was made imperative that a required number of persons must attest any such document being its marginal witnesses and as per requirements of…
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