| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2083 2011 SLD 2083 2011 YLR 332 |
Quetta High Court
R.F.A. No. 36 of 2005, decided on 31st August, 2010. DATE of hearing: 7th May, 2010
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J
Khushnod Ahmed for Appellant. Miss Sarwat Hina for
Respondent
R.F.A. No. 36 of 2005, decided on 31st August, 2010. DATE of hearing: 7th May, 2010
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J
Khushnod Ahmed for Appellant. Miss Sarwat Hina for
Respondent
FATEH KHAN
VS
SHER KHAN
Law:
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42, 54 & 39---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXII, Rr.2, 3 & 10---Suit for declaration, injunction and cancellation of document---Trial Court decreed the suit---Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of defendant---Defendant claimed ownership of property in question on the basis of sale agreement purportedly executed by plaintiff in his favour contending that the suit for declaration was not maintainable with consequential relief of possession---Validity---Defendant was required to prove that plaintiff was entitled to enter into sale agreement with him in respect of property in question but even marginal witnesses of the sale agreement were not produced in the court---Testimony of the witnesses was of no value to defendant's case as they testified only to the effect that defendant was in possession of the property which he had rented out and was receiving rent from the tenant---Defendant was required to establish the existence of legal title in favour of plaintiff which he could pass on to the defendant---No legal title existed in favour of plaintiff at the time of sale agreement as owner of the property was alive at that time---Plaintiff filed suit only for declaration and cancellation of document---Having not claimed ownership of the property in question which belonged to his father, plaintiff was not required to seek possession as consequential relief---Suit was, therefore, maintainable---Trial Court was obliged to calculate the amount of court fee to be paid by plaintiff in case of his success but the requirement was not fulfilled---Plaintiff was, therefore, ordered to pay the required court-fee-Defendant having failed to make out a case in his favour, his appeal was dismissed. JUDGMENT MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.---The appellant feeling aggrieved of judgment, dated 26-9-2005 of Majlis-e-Shoora Loralai, whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed in his favour, preferred present appeal with averments that the trial Court failed to consider the material present on record, while arrived to a conclusion which is based on misappreciation of facts and misapplication of law. The documents placed on…
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