Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 117 2025 SLD 117 2025 PLJ 55
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 339-D of 2016, decided on 8.3.2024. Date of hearing. 27.2.2024.
AUTHOR(S): AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD, J.
Syed Tajammul Hussain Bukhari, Advocate for Petitioners. M/s. Aejaz Ahmad Ansari, Amir Aqeel Ansari and Rashid Saeed, Advocates for
Respondent No. 5. M/s. Muhammad Farooq Warind and Muhammad Asif, Advocates for
Respondent No. 28-D.

KHER DIN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS, ETC.--PETITIONERS

VERSUS

MST. HAYAT BIBI, ETC.--RESPONDENTS

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12, 42

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)--

----Ss. 12 & 42--Agreement to sell was written on plaint paper--Suit for declaration or in alternate specific performance--Dismissal of suit--Appeal--Dismissed--Consolidation proceedings were also challenged--No execution of registered sale-deed or oral sale mutation--No documentary proof regarding death of attesting witness was produce--Burden to locate--Concurrent findings--Challenge to--The property worth of more than Rs. 100/- can only be sold through a registered document--Rural property could be transferred through oral sale mutation--Sanction of mutation or execution of registered deed was also settled by parties--Plain reading of that document depicts that it was merely an agreement that creates a right to obtain another document conferring title in respect thereof--Neither any registered sale deed nor any oral sale mutation was even executed in favour of predecessor of petitioners--Petitioners’ case did not fall within ambit of Section 42 of Act, they could not seek declaration of their title over suit property--Petitioners miserably failed to prove valid execution of agreement to sell through reliable and trustworthy evidence--Agreement to sell was written on a plain paper--Neither signature of executant namely nor writing of document was proved--No documentary proof with regard to death of attesting witnesses had been produced in evidence--Mere oral assertion was not enough to prove factum of their deaths and did not discharge burden to locate and produce them--The findings of Courts below on question of facts and law having based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced in suit, were not liable to be reviewed or substituted by High Court--Revision petition dismissed.


2008 SCMR 1639; PLD 2011 SC 24; PLD 2021 SC 538; 2020 SCMR 276; 2015 SCMR 1081; 2012 SCMR 1373 and 2008 SCMR 428 ref.

 

ORDER

Through this Civil Revision filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, petitioners have called in question the validity and legality of judgments and decrees of learned Courts below whereby their suit for declaration or in alternate specific performance alongwith consequential relief was dismissed concurrently.

🔒
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