| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 286 2025 SLD 286 = 2025 PLD 31 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 3210-L of 2023 and Civil Petition No. 5181 of 2023, decided on 22nd April, 2024.
Present: Athar Minallah, Musarrat Hilali and Irfan Saadat Khan, JJ
Hafiz Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.P. No. 3210-L of 2023) Raja Imran Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.P. No. 5181 of 2023) for Petitioners. Navid Ashiq Alvi, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (in both cases).
Civil Petition No. 3210-L of 2023 and Civil Petition No. 5181 of 2023, decided on 22nd April, 2024.
Present: Athar Minallah, Musarrat Hilali and Irfan Saadat Khan, JJ
Hafiz Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.P. No. 3210-L of 2023) Raja Imran Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.P. No. 5181 of 2023) for Petitioners. Navid Ashiq Alvi, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (in both cases).
Faqir Syed ANWAR UD DIN deceased through LRs---Petitioners
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 8,42,27(b)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 100
Law: Lunacy Act, 1912
Section:
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 8 & 42---Suit for declaration, partition and possession---Person of unsound mind suffering from chronic mental ailments---Property transaction---Onus on beneficiary to prove that transaction was bona fide---Evidence brought on record had established the factum that the plaintiff suffered from mental ailments and that she remained hospitalized from time to time---Question of unsoundness of mind involved questions of fact and it stood proved on the basis of preponderance of evidence and subsequently concurrently affirmed by two competent courts--Defendants had not denied the mental condition of the plaintiff but one of the siblings (defendant No.1) had taken the stance that this medical condition did not exist when the power of attorney was executed in his favour and transactions relating to the two properties were made---However, the defendants could not discharge the onus to this effect and, therefore, the issue was decided against them--Except for defendant No.1 ( in whose favour the purported power of attorney was executed) no other sibling had entered the witness box---Defendant No.1 had admitted that the sale consideration was not paid to the plaintiff, rather, according to his deposition, it was received by defendant No.2---Receipt was also executed by two other siblings---Defendant No.1 himself was a beneficiary of the transfer of the agricultural property while the share in the house was transferred by him pursuant to a power of attorney---Defendant No.1 had made contradictory statements in his deposition regarding the sale of the agricultural land in the name of her mother--Defendant No.1 also failed to bring on record reliable and confidence inspiring evidence to establish that the execution of the power of attorney by a person who suffered from chronic and serious mental ailments and the transactions made on her behalf or attributed to her were bona fide and sustainable---Suit filed by plaintiff through her son as next of friend was rightly decreed---Petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was declined.(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 27(b)---Specific performance of contract---Relief…
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