| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 662 2020 SLD 662 2020 SCMR 496 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1811-L of 2015, decision Dated: 17-02-2020, hearing Date : 05-09-2019 (On appeal from the judgment 24.06.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in R.S.A. No. 09 of 2004)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court
Respondent(s) by: Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record
Civil Petition No. 1811-L of 2015, decision Dated: 17-02-2020, hearing Date : 05-09-2019 (On appeal from the judgment 24.06.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in R.S.A. No. 09 of 2004)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court
Respondent(s) by: Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record
2020 SCMR 496 MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND OTHERS
VS
MANZOOR AHMAD AND OTHERS
Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section: 54
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VIII,R.5
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, R. 5---Agreement to sell immoveable property---Proof---Admission by vendor in his written statement---In the present case, the vendor did not deny execution of the agreement to sell---Fact admitted need not be formally proved---Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam 2015 SCMR 21 ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE:---.--- The facts, briefly stated, are that the present respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell regarding the subject property, against the vendor, one Dost Muhammad. The vendor filed his written statement and issue was joined between the parties. During the pendency of the suit Dost Muhammad purported to transfer the property to his wife by way of gift and it was then subsequently sold to the present petitioners who are therefore the real interested, and hence contesting, parties. The suit was dismissed but an appeal against the same was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, who decreed the suit. The present petitioners filed an appeal before the learned High Court, which was dismissed by means of the impugned judgment. Hence this leave petition. 2. Before us the principal point taken for the petitioners was that the agreement to sell was not properly proved in evidence. Indeed, in the leave petition four questions of law are said to arise out of the impugned judgment, and the first two relate to this point. Now,…
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