Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 8,42

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 35A,O.XLI,R.31

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

Section: 102,103,117

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 8---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 117---Suit for declaration and possession---Fraud---Proof of---Requirements---Transaction between family members---Scope---Plaintiff-wife filed suit for declaration whereas defendant-husband instituted suit for possession of suit property---Contention of plaintiff was that transfer of suit property in favour of defendant was based on fraud---Suit filed by the plaintiff-wife was dismissed whereas that of defendant-husband was decreed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court decreed the suit of wife and dismissed that of defendant---Validity---Burden of proving fraud was on the party who had alleged the same---Fraud and forgery must be proved by producing unimpeachable, impartial and confidence-inspiring evidence---Mere allegations in the pleadings could not partake proof required under the law---Transactions for transfer of properties in the record of Capital Development Authority in accordance with procedure for such transfer between family members should be given due sanctity---Any family member who was a party to such transfer assailing such transaction on the ground of fraud or forgery must come with cogent and unimpeachable evidence to be successful in his endeavor---Plaintiff in her evidence had not given any particulars of fraud allegedly played on her by her husband for transfer of suit property from her name---Nothing was on record that signatures for transfer of suit property in favour of defendant were forgeries---Plaintiff did not make effort to have her signatures on the documents in question forensically examined in order to prove that same were forged---Plaintiff had failed to impeach the transaction as to transfer of suit house from her name to that of defendant on ground of fraud---Defendant-husband was owner of suit property---Impugned and decree passed by the Appellate Court were not sustainable, in circumstances---Suit for declaration was dismissed whereas that of possession was decreed, in circumstances---Revision was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Zaman v. Sheikh Abdul Hamid 2002 CLC 1209; Muhammad Bakhsh and 4 others v. Province of Punjab through…

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