Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2314 2013 SLD 2314 2013 PLD 327
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 673 of 2002, decided on 12th March, 2013. DATE ofhearing: 14th February, 2013
AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, J
Nemo for Plaintiff. Nawab Mirza for Defenedants

ZULFIQAR ALI MUBASHARVsMUHAMMAD MUMTAZ ALAM through Legal Heirs

Law: Registration Act, 1908

Section: 49

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 54

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 58,59

(a) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)--- ----S. 49---Non-registration of document---Effect---Un-registered document is not admissible in evidence, so also does not create any right in suit property in favour of party relying on it, even if it is supposed to be genuine document. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----Ss. 58 & 59---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.49---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.54---Suit for injunction---Mortgage of property---Proof---Res judicata principle of---Applicability---Plaintiff claimed to have suit property mortgaged in his favour by defendant and sought execution of documents in his favour---Defendant contended that unregistered mortgage deed relied upon by plaintiff was a forged document---Validity---Mortgage deed besides being forged and fabricated was without any consideration and the same being unregistered document did not create any right or interest in favour of plaintiff vis-a-vis suit property---In cases filed by defendant and contested by plaintiff up to Supreme Court relationship between plaintiff and defendant was proved to be that of tenant and landlord---in said cases main defence taken by plaintiff was that demise premises/suit property was mortgaged with him and he was holding possession thereof in his capacity as a mortgagee and not as tenant, which stand could not be proved in that cases---Findings on relationship of plaintiff and defendant had already attained finality and doctrine of res judicata was also attracted---Plaintiff could not prove his case and was not entitled to any relief as claimed by him---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. Hakim-ud-Din v.Faiz Bakhsh 2007 SCMR 874 rel. (c) Damages-- ----Recovery---Principle---Damages cannot be granted in absence of positive evidence and require evidence vis-a-vis details of losses actually suffered---Even fixed amount of damages cannot be granted unless quantum of actual losses is proved---Party claiming damages has to firstly plead and then prove damages by sufficient, cogent, trustworthy and independent evidence. Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. v. Muhammad Amin Brothers Ltd. PLD 1969 Kar. 233 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