| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 718 2021 SLD 718 2021 CLC 584 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 220 of 2005, heard on 21st October, 2020, Date of hearing: 21st October, 2020.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Irfan Alam for Petitioner. Khalid Ikram Khatana and Sohail Zafar Sipra for
Respondent No.1.
Civil Revision No. 220 of 2005, heard on 21st October, 2020, Date of hearing: 21st October, 2020.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Irfan Alam for Petitioner. Khalid Ikram Khatana and Sohail Zafar Sipra for
Respondent No.1.
WALAYAT (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. AND OTHERS
VS
SHAHADAT THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section: 54
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)
Section: 102
(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S.54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42--- Suit for declaration---Sale how made---Contract of sale---Failure to prove payment of consideration---Scope---Plaintiff approached Civil Court through declaratory suit aiming cancellation of registered sale deed as well as its implementing mutation asserting that the suit area was mortgaged to defendants for a term of five years but they managed registration of sale deed within just ten days of the attestation of mortgage mutation and that he was an illiterate and advanced age seriously ill person---Validity---Illiteracy, advanced age and serious illness of the plaintiff was not disputed---Burden to prove the contents of document, in addition to proof of execution and ingredients of the transaction couched therein, was on the defendants, being beneficiaries---In order to prove that a transaction was sale, the passing of price or its promise had to be contemplated and in absence thereof, mere registration of document to that effect did not operate to pass title to the beneficiary---Marginal witnesses of the sale deed and Deed Writer admitted that the consideration was not paid before them---High Court observed that in the absence of proof that sale consideration was received by the vendor, there was no sale in the eyes of law---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances Shahid Nasim and 2 others v. Syeda Imtiaz Khatoon PLD 1997 Lah. 243 and Hakim Ali v. Sakhi Muhammad and 16 others 1996 SCMR 354 distinguished. Gopal Das v. Siri Thakir Gee and others AIR 1943 P.C. 83; Siraj Din v. Jamila and another PLD 1997 Lah. 633; Fakhar-ud-Din through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Iqbal and others 2015 CLC 994; Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Mukhtar Ahmad Khan and others 2006 SCMR 1144; Khan Muhammad v. Muhammad Din through L.Rs. 2010 SCMR 1351; Amjad Ikram v. Mst. Asiya Kausar and 2 others 2015 SCMR 1 and Muhammad Shafi and others v. Allah Dad Khan PLD 1986 SC 519 ref. Muhammad Sher and 2 others v. Muhammad Azim and another PLD 1977 Lah. 729 rel. (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872) [since repealed]--- ----S.102---Burden of proof---Scope---Ordinarily a document is not proved by itself unless…
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