| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 2959 2019 SLD 2959 2019 CLC 1951 |
Sindh High Court
Suit Nos. 209 of 2010 and 112 of 2011, decision Dated:29-03-2019. Dates of hearing: 18th February, 4th, 11th and18th March, 2019.
MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mirza Adil Beg and Muhammad Atif Shujaat M. Beg (in Suit No.209 of 2010 and for Defendant in Suit No.112 of 2011).
Respondent(s) by: Mustafa Lakhani (in Suit No.209 of 2010 and for Plaintiff in Suit No.112 of 2011).
Suit Nos. 209 of 2010 and 112 of 2011, decision Dated:29-03-2019. Dates of hearing: 18th February, 4th, 11th and18th March, 2019.
MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mirza Adil Beg and Muhammad Atif Shujaat M. Beg (in Suit No.209 of 2010 and for Defendant in Suit No.112 of 2011).
Respondent(s) by: Mustafa Lakhani (in Suit No.209 of 2010 and for Plaintiff in Suit No.112 of 2011).
MOHSIN ALIVSSAFDAR HUSSAIN BIRLAS AND OTHERS
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 89,103
Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)
Section: 103
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VI,XXIX,R.1,14,15
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 89 & 103---Suit for declaration and injunction---Ostensible ownership---Proof---Plaintiff was owner of suit property and was aggrieved of possession by defendants---Plea raised by defendants was that they were ostensible owners and that Power-of-attorney of plaintiff's counsel was defective---Validity---Deposition of attorney was recorded on 28-01-2013 whereas subsequent general power of attorney was of 18-02-2013 which was duly attested by Pakistan Mission at London, as per requirement of Art.89 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Lacuna even if it was there at time of giving evidence was subsequently rectified/cured by subsequent General Power of Attorney authenticity of which was never disputed---In terms of Art. 103 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 documentary evidence excluded oral evidence and any contrary deposition of such attorney at relevant time when subsequent Power-of-Attorney was not there but subsequently produced as evidence would not adversely affect case of plaintiff---Attorney was duly authorized by the principal/plaintiff to institute and pursue litigation in all respects---Plaintiff on account of his cordial relationship with family of defendants allowed them to reside and use suit property in utmost good faith and to return a past favour which was extended by defendants to plaintiff by allowing latter to reside with defendants when they were in Dubai few decades back---Defendants misused bona fide gesture of plaintiff which resulted in present litigation---Plaintiff was put through mill of litigation merely to get back possession of his own property---Attitude of defendants shook trust of a close family friend plaintiff and defendants and such action indicated declining social values in society---High Court declared that sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was adequate amount that defendants were liable to pay to plaintiff towards general damages and compensation---Suit was decreed in circumstances. Begum Nusrat Ali Gonda v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2013 SC 829; Manager, Jammu and Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678; Muhammad Anwar Khan and 5 others v. Chaudhry Riaz…
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