| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6245 2024 SLD 6245 = 2024 YLR 752 |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Civil Revision Application No. S-53 of 2016, decided on 13th May, 2022.
Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J
Choudhry Shahid Hussain Rajput for Applicants. Abdus Salam Arain for
Respondents.
Civil Revision Application No. S-53 of 2016, decided on 13th May, 2022.
Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J
Choudhry Shahid Hussain Rajput for Applicants. Abdus Salam Arain for
Respondents.
MANJHI KHAN and another---Applicants
VERSUS
NOOR ALAM through Legal heirs and others---Respondents
Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section: IV,54
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 12
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)-------S. 54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property---Agreement to sell not proved---Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell immovable property by the predecessor-in-interest of defendants, whereas the defendants filed a suit for cancellation of that agreement to sell---Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and suit filed by the defendants was decreed---Appeal was filed by the plaintiff but same was dismissed---Validity---Record showed that applicant (plaintiff) during his cross-examination stated that on the very same date the Notary Public attested the agreement to sale, from the office of the Stamp Vendor they proceeded towards Notary Public on a Tanga (horse carriage) and at that time Stamp Vendor was with them---Whereas witness of applicant stated in his cross-examination that they never proceeded to any other office from the office of stamp vendor---Sale agreement in question was doubtful after scanning evidence of the defendant side who produced the documentary evidence to the effect that on the day of sale agreement original owner was admitted to a hospital and a discharge card was exhibited in the evidence which had not been challenged---From the evidence it was very much clear that the applicant managed a sale agreement in collusion with his witness--Record was silent as to why the alleged sale agreement was executed at place "S" instead of "G" as the vendee and attesting witnesses were residents of place "G" and such facility of stamp paper and the Notary public was available at "G" as had been admitted by the parties---Witness of applicant had also not supported the case of applicants regarding scribing of the alleged sale agreement; besides the signature of deceased did not match with his signatures as had been observed by the appellate Court---Revision application was accordingly dismissed.Date of hearing: 21st February, 2022.ORDERZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.---This Civil Revision Application has been directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.05.2016 passed by learned 2nd Additional…