Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 435 2012 SLD 435 2012 CLC 238
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.258 of 2009, heard on 20-06-2011
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J

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

ABDUL REHMAN

VS

Mst. KARAM MAI

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Suit for declaration---Contention of the plaintiff was that she never sold the suit land to the defendant and that alleged sale-deed was forged and a fictitious document---Thumb-impressions on the impugned sale-deed, were admitted by the parties and by the witnesses---Even the plaintiff when appeared as her witness, had admitted that she affixed thumb-impression on the sale-deed, but had stated that same was obtained under coercion---Thumb-impression on sale-deed having been admitted, suit for declaration was not competent, however, suit for cancellation of the sale-deed, was required to be filed---Son and nephew of the plaintiff were with the plaintiff' when sale-deed was executed and attested--=Nephew of the plaintiff who was attesting witness of sale-deed had not even denied his signature on the sale-deed---Evidence of the plaintiff, was contradictory to her pleadings, whereas the defendant had produced Lambardar of the Mauza and other witnesses one of whom who was Petition Writer, who also proved the sale-deed and stated that plaintiff affixed her thumb-impression on the sale-deed with her free-will and consent---Documentary evidence thus had also proved the transaction---Findings recorded by both the courts decreeing the suit of the plaintiff were result of misreading, non-reading and misinterpretation of documentary evidence produced by the parties---Defendant had fully proved the execution of impugned sale-deed and the plaintiff had failed to lead cogent evidence against evidence produced by the defendant---. Form of the suit was also not correct---Impugned s and decrees passed by both the courts below, were set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances. Saeed Anwar Chaudhry for Petitioner. Sh. Najam Ali for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th June, 2011. JUDGMENT AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this civil revision the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 6-5-2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge; Khanpur whereby the I appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed against the judgment and decree dated 21-6-2008 whereby the suit filed by the respondent…
🔒
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