Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 835 2013 SLD 835 2013 CLC 1345
High Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No.61 of 2010, decision dated: 20-05-2013
AZHAR SALEEM BABAR, 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

Sardar RAZA MUHAMMAD KHAN

VS

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12,42

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12,42

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 113

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 12---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.113---Suit for specific performance of sale agreement---Limitation, starting point of---Scope---When period for registration of sale-deed was fixed in the agreement, then limitation provided under Art.113 of Limitation Act, 1908 would start running after its expiry, otherwise from date of refusal of defendant to perform his part under agreement---Illustration. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 42---Suit for declaration and specific performance of sale agreement---Maintainability---Simultaneous claims for declaration of title to suit-land on basis of family settlement and specific performance of sale agreement---Validity---Both such claims were contradictory in nature---Sale agreement would not create a title in plaintiff's favour, rather created an opportunity for title of suit-land---Plaintiff could file suit only for specific performance of sale agreement, but his remedy to extent of declaration was not competent under law. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17(2)(a) & 79---Suit for specific performance of sale agreement---Proof---Plaintiff examined scribe of sale agreement and one marginal witness thereof, who deposed that neither same was written in his presence nor was read over to him---Plaintiff was legally obliged to have proved sale agreement by examining two marginal witnesses thereof---Perusal of stamp paper would show that same was basically sold for an affidavit, which had later on been converted to purpose of sale agreement with different handwriting---Non-affixation of signature by Stamp Vendor on such altered phrase had rendered sale agreement to be highly doubtful---Plaintiff had failed to prove his case---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. 1989 CLC 1498 and 2006 SCR 243 ref. Ayaz Ahmed Hashmi for Appellant. Sardar Anwar Khan for Respondent. ORDER AZHAR SALEEM BABAR, J.--- The above titled appeal has been filed to challenge the validity of decree and judgment passed by learned District Judge Sudhnooti, dated 29-4-2010. Whereby, decree and judgment of the Civil Judge Pallandri has been…
🔒
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