Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 3050 2022 SLD 3050 2022 YLR 1028
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1291 of 2011, heard on 15th November, 2021.
CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J
Syed Muhammad Aslam Rizvi for Petitioner (in Civil Revision No. 1291 of 2011). Abdul Shakoor Chaudhary for
Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 5 (in the instant case and for petitioners in connected Civil Revision No. 515 of 2011). Ch. Zahoor-ul-Haq and Ch. Muhamma

Mst. KAUSAR BIBI

VS

MUHAMMAD SARWAR and others

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 17,79,80

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 12(2)

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts.17, 79 80---Agreement to sell---Proof/plaintiff alleged that he had purchased the land through agreement to sell dated 07-07-1992 with its owner against consideration of Rs.250,000/- and paid Rs.200,000/- as earnest money; that the owner had died on 21-08-1992; and that the legal heirs of the deceased refused to perform part of the agreement to execute the sale deed---Suit was decreed on 04-12-1993 (widow of the deceased) along with other respondents submitted application under S.12(2) which was allowed on 31-03-2001’s suit was dismissed by Trial Court on 24-04-2009 and his appeal was allowed by appellate Court on 09-02-2011---Validity as witness deposed before that no agreement was executed by her husband/deceased in favour of plaintiff nor he received any consideration; that plaintiff committed fraud; that after death of her husband, respondent told her to accompany him for some help and took her with him; that he told her that he had transferred the land in her name and forcibly got her thumb impressions; that she refused to impose thumb impression; that she filed application under S.12(2) of C.P.C.; that the stamp paper was a forged document; that her husband was an educated person; and that she was an illiterate woman---Neither respondent nor his witnesses had described the exact date of the execution of alleged agreement to sell in evidence---One marginal witness of said agreement was produced and nothing had been disclosed qua the second marginal witness---Mandatory provisions of Arts. 17 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, had not been complied with, therefore, had failed to prove the execution of the said agreement did not make any effort to prove the alleged agreement to sell through the mode prescribed under Art. 80 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Court’s order dated allowing petitioner’s application under S.12(2) was challenged by respondent but the same remained intact by appellate Court and attained finality---Revision petition was allowed accordingly. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 12(2)---Fraud---Principle---Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and any ill-gotten gain achieved by…
🔒
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