Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 479 2020 SLD 479 2020 MLD 313
Sindh High Court
R.A. No. 56 of 2008, decision Dated: 24-01-2019. Dates ofhearing: 13th, 20th, 26th, November, 6th and 13th December,2018.
MUHAMMAD SALEEM, JESSAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Sarfraz Ahmed Akhund, A.M. Mubeen Khan and Abdul Naeem
Respondent(s) by: Mukesh G. Karara and Sajjad Muhammad Zangejo No.1.

AGHA SYED MUHAMMADVSMUHAMMAD ANWAR AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VIII,XLI,R.5,31

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Mis-description of property---Contradiction in pleadings and evidence---Scope---Plaintiff claimed that the suit property, on the basis of his possession, was permanently allotted to him whereas defendant claimed that the plaintiff was occupying the land of madressa and that he joined the madressa as its employee and an accomodation was provided to him, however, later on he refused to vacate the same---Validity---Plaintiff pleaded that he had taken up residence on the western side of the madressa whereas his witness stated in cross-examination that the house was built on the eastern side of the madressa---When the witness was confronted with the averments made in the plaint to the effect that the house was claimed to be on the western side of the madressa, the witness simply termed it as a typographical mistake, but when he was asked whether such typographical mistake was ever corrected, he answered in the negative---Mis-description as to the location of the suit property could not be termed as a mere typographical mistake as the dispute went to the root of the case---Dispute between the parties was not with regard to the location of the suit property---Issue was with regard to the averments made in the pleadings and the oral evidence in support thereof---Plaintiff did not produce any document to prove that he had established the madressa---Plaintiff himself had admitted in his plaint that certain piece of land was allotted to madressa, however, some of it was later on allotted to him but no description of the area was given---Piece of land allotted to the madressa could not be allotted to anyone else---High Court observed that had the claim of plaintiff, that he had established the madressa, been true then due to differences, his employees should have been shown the door rather than the other way around---Revision petition was dismissed. 2004 YLR 879 distinguished. 1992 CLC 1022; 2014 YLR 602; 1996 SCMR 669; 2010 CLC 1931; Begum Syeda Azra Masood v. Begum Noshaba Moeen 2007 SCMR 914; 1989 MLD 4107; 2005 CLC 1693; 2005 YLR 1738; 2004 YLR 879; 2000 CLC 1018; 2002…
🔒
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