Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 2477 2023 SLD 2477 2023 PLJ 648
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.A. Nos. 1731 & 1732 of 2021 and C.M.A. Nos. 13433 & 13475 of 2021, decided on 24.5.2023. (On appeal against the judgment dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision Nos. 3332 & 3333 of 2010)Date of hearing: 24.5.2023.
Present: IJAZ-UL-AHSAN AND SHAHID WAHEED, JJ.
Agha Muhammad Ali Khan, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Appellants (in both cases). Malik Matee Ullah, ASC for
Respondents No. 1-3 (in both cases) (via video link from Lahore). Ex-parte for
Respondent No. 4 (in both cases).

MUHAMMAD MUNIR & others--Appellants

VERSUS

UMAR HAYAT and others--Respondents

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 39,42

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----Ss. 39 & 42--Declaratory suits and cancellation of documents--Dismissed--Appeal--Revision petition--Accepted--Sale of land and exchange of land--Sale deed and exchange deeds were entered in revenue record--Plea of insanity--Failure of plaintiff to discharging burden of pleadings--No existence of fraud--Challenge to--Plaintiffs had failed to discharge their burden of pleadings, and tumbled at first stage of trial of their claim--It was stated by plaintiffs in their plaint and (PW1), also admitted that executant was under treatment of Hakeem, but he was not examined, nor was any explanation furnished why he was not presented? this to be a serious flaw in plaintiffs’ case--It is now well recognized that a permanent paralytic affection, though it somewhat saps physical energy of sufferer, does not necessarily impairs his mental power to such an extent to render him incapable of transacting business--Defendants not only produced all witnesses to disputed documents, but also produced all their records from custody of Record-Keeper before trial Court and from statements of all of them--It is settled that standard of proof required in a civil dispute is preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt--Plaintiffs could not establish existence of fraud, it must follow that their suits have ex-facie no merit--Trial Court and first appellate Court had appreciated evidence properly and that view being a possible view, High Court ought not to have disputed same in revision and that too on surmises and conjectures--Appeals allowed. AIR 1929 Lah. 711, 2005 SCMR 911, 2021 SCMR 558 and 2022 SCMR 1282 ref. JUDGMENT Shahid Waheed, J.--These two appeals are by the defendants and arise out of two declaratory suits and the relief claimed therein was first dismissed by the trial Court, and then on appeal by the first appellate Court, but on revision, this was accepted and the High Court issued decrees in favour of the plaintiffs, and we wish to consider them together in this judgment for not only the matter in issue in both of them are directly and substantially the same, but it is also between the same parties, who are…
🔒
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