Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 41

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 79

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----S. 12--Suit for specific performance--Ex-parte decreed--Application for set aside exparty decree--Allowed--Filling of amended plaint--Decreed--Appeal--Accepted--Sale consideration of vehicle--Receiving of total amount--Challenge to--It is settled principle of law that plaintiff has to establish his case on his own evidence and cannot get benefit from weakness of defence--It is indeed settled principle of law that a person cannot transfer to another a title or a right greater than what he himself possess--Hence, purchasers from seller cannot take more than what seller can sell--None of said plaintiffs had appeared before Court to establish that indeed they are bonafide purchasers of suit property--Their non-appearance before Court is fatal to their alleged claim of being bonafide purchasers--Civil Revision was dismissed. Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Art. 79--Beneficiary of documents--Marginal witness--It is mandatory upon beneficiary of a document, on basis of which he claims his title that not only he has to establish deed by producing marginal witnesses (two in number) of same but has also to establish contents of said deed. Maxim-- ----This principle is based on maxim; "Nemo dat qui non-habet'--No one can give what he has not got--Petition was dismissed. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SYED ARSHAD ALI, JUSTICE---.--- Through the instant revision petition, the petitioners have assailed the judgment and decree dated 2.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/lzafi Zila Qazi Matta Swat, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants/respondents against the judgment and decree dated 2.07.2008 of the trial Court was accepted and as a consequent thereof suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners stood dismissed. 2. Essential facts of the case are that on 26.8.1993 the plaintiff/Petitioner No. 1 Mukaram Khan had instituted a suit against the Respondent No. 2 Noor Zada and his father namely Khaitab for specific performance of agreement dated 15.6.1993 before the erstwhile PATA Courts. However, on abolition of PATA Courts, the said case was transferred to the regular Courts on 09.9.1996, where the…

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