| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2332 2026 SLD 2332 = 2026 MLD 492 |
Sindh High Court
2nd Appeal Application No. S-17 of 2024, decided on 6th February, 2025.
Presented By: Amjad Ali Bohio, J
Mir Tarique Khan Talpur for Appellant. Subhash Sharma for
Respondents Nos. 2(a) and 4. Muhammad Saleem Kumbhar for
Respondents Nos. 6 and 7(a). Muhammad Sharif Solangi Assistant Advocate General for Official
Respondents.
2nd Appeal Application No. S-17 of 2024, decided on 6th February, 2025.
Presented By: Amjad Ali Bohio, J
Mir Tarique Khan Talpur for Appellant. Subhash Sharma for
Respondents Nos. 2(a) and 4. Muhammad Saleem Kumbhar for
Respondents Nos. 6 and 7(a). Muhammad Sharif Solangi Assistant Advocate General for Official
Respondents.
GHULAM MUHAMMAD---Appellant
VERSUS
KHAMESO KHAN and others---Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 42. 52
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 17, 79
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) Ss.42 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17& 79---Suit for declaration and injunction---Document, proof of---Illiterate person---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Appellant / plaintiff claimed ownership of suit land on the basis registered sale deed---Suit filed by appellant / plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court---Validity---When two original attesting witnesses of a document were available, neither scribe of document nor any other witness could be treated as an attesting witness---Document was solely attested by a witness in violation of Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Execution of sale deed was not proved as it was not attested by at least two witnesses, as mandated by Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Appellant / plaintiff and his witness failed to establish as to whether contents of sale deed were read over to respondent / defendant who was an illiterate individual and was its alleged executant---Such omission was critical, as it was essential to prove a document purportedly executed by an elderly illiterate person---Appellant / plaintiff was obligated to prove due execution of sale deed in accordance with law but had failed to do so and there were contradictions in evidence presented by appellant / plaintiff---High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of two Courts below as there was no grave injustice or material illegality evident on record---Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Shafi and others v. Allah Dad Khan PLD 1986 SC 519; Aurangzaib through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another 2007 SCMR 236; Rab Nawaz and others v. Ghulam Rasul 2014 SCMR 1181; Wali Muhammad Khan and another v. Mst. Amina and others 2018 SCMR 2080; Mst. Kalsoom Begum v. Peran Ditta and others 2022 SCMR 1352; Sh. Muhammad Sarif Uppal v. Sh. Akbar Hussain and others PLD 1990 Lahore 229; Siraj Din v. Mst. Jameelan and another PLD 1997 Lahore 633; Muhammad Tufail v. Abdul Aziz through legal heirs PLD 1998 Lahore 137; Abdul Majeed and 6 others v. Muhammad Subhan and 2 others 1999 SCMR 1245; Noor Begum v. Abdul…