Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 937 2016 SLD 937 2016 CLC 73
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 533 of 1996, decided on 18th December, 2014. DATE of hearing: 18th December, 2014.
ATIR MAHMOOD, J
Muhammad Fazil Muhammad for Petitioner. Mian Muhammad Akram for
Respondents Nos.1 to 3.

KHUDA BAKHSH

VS

MUHAMMAD YAR and others KHUDA BAKHSH VS MUHAMMAD YAR and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 27 (b) & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10---Suit for declaration---Necessary party---Subsequent purchaser---Plea raised by plaintiff was that subsequent purchasers could not file appeal against and decree passed by Trial Court---Validity---Appellants before Lower Appellate Court were subsequent purchasers of suit property and question as to whether they were bona fide purchasers of suit property could only be decided if they were impleaded as defendants in the suit---Appellants before Lower Appellate Court claimed that they purchased the property through sale mutation after due verification of ownership of defendants, as their names were duly incorporated in record of rights and there was no restraining order on record whereby property could not be shown to be under any lien---Appellants were legally entitled to file appeal before the lower Appellate Court against and decree passed by Trial Court. Sahib Dad v. Province of Punjab and others 2009 SCMR 385 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17 & 79---Suit for declaration---Ownership---Proof---Two marginal witnesses, requirement of---Plaintiff filed suit claiming to be owner in possession of suit property and alleged that sale deed in favour of defendants was a forged document---Trial Court decreed suit in favour of plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit---Plea raised by plaintiff was that defendants did not produce two marginal witnesses to prove sale deed in their favour---Validity---Plaintiff failed to establish on record that disputed sale deed in favour of defendants was forged and fictitious document---Contention of plaintiff that only one marginal witness was produced and there was no other eyewitness, therefore, sale deed was not in accordance with provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was misconceived, as in year, 1979, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was not in existence, therefore, provisions of Arts.17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, were not attracted---Appearance of one marginal witness of document, whose credibility could not be shaken in cross-examination, was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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