| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1439 2023 SCMR 1399 2023 SLD 1439 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 1731, 1732 and C.M.As. Nos.13433, 13475 of 2021, decided on 24th May, 2023.Date of hearing: 24th May, 2023. (On appeal against the judgment dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revisions Nos. 3332 and 3333
Present: Ijaz ul Ahsan and Shahid Waheed, JJ
MUHAMMAD MUNIR and others---Appellants Vs UMAR HAYAT and others---
Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 1731, 1732 and C.M.As. Nos.13433, 13475 of 2021, decided on 24th May, 2023.Date of hearing: 24th May, 2023. (On appeal against the judgment dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revisions Nos. 3332 and 3333
Present: Ijaz ul Ahsan and Shahid Waheed, JJ
MUHAMMAD MUNIR and others---Appellants Vs UMAR HAYAT and others---
Respondents
Khalil Ahmad v. Abdul Jabbar Khan and others 2005 SCMR 911; Messrs SAZCO (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Askari Commercial Bank Limited 2021 SCMR 558 and Haji Muhammad Yunis (deceased) through Legal heirs and another v. Mst. Farukh Sultan and others 2022 SCMR 1282 ref.
A
Law: Contract, Act, 1872
Section: 11,12
(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 11 12---Unsoundness of mind---Proof---Registered sale deed and exchange deed executed by plaintiffs father challenged on the plea that their father had been suffering from paralysis for a long time; his hands and other limbs were affected with tremors and trembles; he could not relieve himself of his natural urges, and even to talk he used to express himself in gestures; and because of his illness he was very weak and could not walk around---Validity---Crucial point of determination in case a plea of insanity or unsoundness of mind is taken is the time of execution of the contract---In the present case, the disputed documents were registered in 1996 while plaintiffs father (executant) died in 1998 and thus the plaintiffs were to clearly state when their father had an attack of paralysis; did this occur before the documents were executed or after it?---This was a material fact that ought to have been disclosed in the plaint, but was conspicuously omitted, and since the plaintiffs could not go beyond the scope of their pleadings, they could not even be allowed to put in any statement or material to rectify the omission during the course of evidence, and as such, it would be fair to hold that the plaintiffs had failed to discharge their burden of pleadings, and tumbled at the first stage of the trial of their claim---Best evidence of the fathers mental disorder could have been the medical attendant (hakeem) who treated him at the relevant time---However said physician (hakeem) was not examined, nor was any explanation furnished why he was not presented---One of the plaintiffs, who was also son of the executant, stated in his examination-in-chief that his father was ill and suffering from paralysis; but he did not say that his father was mentally challenged---However, during cross-examinations he said that his father had tremor in his body before his death, and that in the year 1995-1996, his father had sold his other land to another person---Such statement proved that the father (executant), though ill, was of sound mind and able to look after his own affairs at the time of registration of the disputed sale deed and…
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