Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 1200 2023 SLD 1200 2023 PLJ 319
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.A. No. 801 of 2021, decided on 14.12.2022. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 25.06.2021 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in C.R. No. 08-D of 2013) Date of Hearing : 14.12.2022.
IJAZ-UL-AHSAN AND SHAHID WAHEED, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others--Appellants

VS

MUHAMMAD ISHAQ RANA (deceased) through LRs and others--Respondents

Law: Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012

Section: 4

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012 (IV of 2012)-- ----S. 4--Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), S. 42--Suit for declaration filed by appellants was dismissed while suit for partition of suit property filed by respondent was partially decreed--Consolidated --Appeal--Dismissed--Revision petition--Accepted--Sale-deed in name of predecessor of respondents--Sale-deed was given to one of respondents for domicile--Refusal to return of sale-deed--Appellants was in possession of suit property--Essential elements of fair trial--Burden of proof--Motive of transaction--Claim of appellants was not supported by their evidence--Challenge to--It is one of essential elements of a fair trial that law must be applied to any transaction in light of its ordinary course of human conduct--We have perused pleadings and evidence brought on record and find that appellants fall short of material facts--This omission cannot be condoned and that alone is sufficient to reject claim of appellants--Burden of proof lies heavily on person who claims against tenor of document or deed to show that ostensible vendee (owner) was a mere name-lender and property was in fact purchased only for his benefit--A witness to sale-deed (Ex.P-3), namely, who is real son of alleged Benamidar appeared in Court as DW-4 and stated that he had paid Rs. 3,500/- for house to Nawab Mirza, and this money was given to him by his mother after taking it from his father--It would not be unjust to hold that appellants had failed to prove that their father Imam-ud-Din paid purchase money--Brother of brother-in-law of appellants was married to (Respondent No. 7 herein), daughter of benamidar and after his death business and property disputes arose, in continuation of it, Respondent No. 7 also filed a case against brother-in-law of appellants, in which appellants supported their brother-in-law--Evidence adduced by appellants is of no value as it does not throw any light on essential points involved in case--Viewing case from each and every angle, there is not even an iota of evidence to support claim of appellants--On an overall appreciation of evidence adduced by both parties, in light of all relevant and…
🔒
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