Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----Ss. 42 54--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 115--Suit for declaration and permanent injunction--Dismissed--Appeal--Allowed-Sale deed--Deniel of execution of sale deed by marginal witnesses--Failing to prove genuineness of sale-deed--Proving of fraud and forgery--Right of inheritance--Findings of appellate Court--Challenge to--Witnesses while appearing in witness box categorically stated on oath, that they have no knowledge of sale of suit land in favour of petitioner neither they signed sale deed nor witnesses of alleged transaction but astonishingly trial Court dismissed suit of respondents on ground which was not agitated or pleaded by parties--Marginal witnesses of sale deed were produced by respondents instead of petitioners and both witnesses denied execution of sale deed--In cross-examination, witnesses corroborated statement even in examination-in-chiefs therefore, appellate Court rightly appreciated record and particularly evidence available on file and correctly reached to conclusion, that respondents have succeeded to prove fraud and forgery committed by (deceased)--Even otherwise, petitioner remained failed to prove genuineness of sale deed--Property in question will be inherited by petitioner being only male descendant of Munshi son of Lahab--Since, this has not been agitated or made part of this litigation, therefore, petitioners, if had any right of inheritance, they may avail remedy available in law--Petition was dismissed. 2002 SCMR 429 ref. Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Arts. 17 79--Proving of registered document--Needless to mention, that as per Articles 17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, Order, 1984, registered or unregistered document has to be proved by adducing two marginal witnesses JUDGMENT The petitioners, through this civil revision, challenge the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2002, passed by the learned appellate Court in a suit for declaration with permanent injunction filed by the respondents on the ground, that the suit land measuring 13 Kanal (fully described in the petition) was owned by husband of Respondent No. 1, namely Munshi; the predecessor of the Petitioners…

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