Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 9,12

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----Ss. 9 12--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 100--Suit for possession through specific performance--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Sale agreement--Deniel of sale agreement and receiving of amount--Possession of appellant on suit land--Non-producing of stamp vendor and deed writer in evidence by respondent--Non-proving of execution of sale agreement--Contradiction in statements of PWs--Non filing of any application by respondent for comparison of thumb-impression--Challenge to--When respondent paid a huge amount why he did not get possession of suit land--Admittedly appellants are still in possession of suit land--Liaqat Ali, real son of Muhammad Sharif deceased, while appearing as P.W.3 stated that bargain was completed in his bethak whereas respondent stated that bargain was completed in bethak of Muhammad Sharif has no knowledge regarding whereabouts of land--One marginal witness namely, Abdul Majeed, appearing as P.W.2, stated in his cross examination that he has no knowledge that how much amount is still payable to defendants--Neither stamp vendor nor deed writer was a produced by respondent--Appellate Court dismissed appeal on sole ground that appellant has not put any suggestion to plaintiff witnesses to effect that alleged agreement is a false and forged document--Judgment passed by appellate Court is clearly based on misreading and non-reading of evidence failed to prove execution of execution of alleged agreement to sell through any solid, unimpeachable and concrete evidence--Evidence of respondent is also not in line with P.Ws also did not file any application for comparison of thumb impression of Muhammad Salman, as such, respondent has failed to prove execution of agreement Exh P-l under law--Courts below, while passing impugned s decrees, committed misreading and non-reading of evidence, illegality and material irregularity, as such, same are not sustainable in eye of law and can be upset--Appeal allowed. PLD 2015 SC 187, PLD 2011 SC 241, 2010 SCMR 1630 and 2016 SCMR 24 ref. JUDGMENT Through this Regular Second Appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity of judgment and decree dated 18.01.2013,…

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