Case Details

Citation(s)
1997 SLG 1326 1997 SLD 1326 = 1997 PLD 589
Sindh High Court
Revision Application No. 167 of 1984, decided on 8th May, 1997.
Presented By: Before Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, J
Abdul Hai Memon for Applicant Jhamat Jethanand for
Respondents

ABDUL HAMEED---Applicant/Plaintiff

VERSUS

SUHRAB through Legal Heirs---Respondent/Defendant

Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section: 53

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 53-A---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.2(1)(c)---Agreement to sell-- Quantum of proof- --Best evidence available with plaintiff was scribe who had written agreement in question, but had not been examined---Stamp vendor who had issued stamp had also not been examined by plaintiff- --Defendant having denied execution of agreement of sale, it was necessary for plaintiff to have requested Trial Court to get report of Finger Print Expert as to whether thumb impression so affixed on said agreement belonged to defendant or not-- Agreement to sell was not proved in circumstances. Dil Murad and others v. Akbar Shah 1986 SCMR 306; Abdul Ghaffar v. Muhammad Sharif 1993 CLC 1779; Saheb Khan through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Pannah PLD 1994 SC 162; Syed Qamar Ahmad and another v. Anjum Zafar and others 1994 SCMR 65; Atta Muhammad v. Matloob Alam Khan 1996 SCMR 601; Haji Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 88 and Muhammad and 2 others v. Mst. Banuk Naz Khatoon 1989 CLC 1819 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXI, R.2---Settlement outside Court---Essentials---Where there was any settlement outside Court, same could have been filed before the Court and compromise could have been effected to the satisfaction of decree of Court-- Such procedure had not been adopted by parties---Evidence produced by plaintiff amounted to suppression of admitted facts and denial of some established facts-- Such evidence could not be accepted and no reliance could be placed on that evidence---Documents produced by defendants clearly showed that plaintiff and his witness had deposed falsely in Court and had knowingly suppressed facts and had deliberately given wrong statement under oath---Courts below had, thus, correctly rejected their evidence---Settlement out of Court as alleged by plaintiff was, thus, not proved in circumstances. Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)- ---S. 53-A---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Agreement to sell---No cogent evidence was produced by plaintiff to inspire confidence---Evidence produced by plaintiff was falsified by documents produced by defendant-- Courts below, thus, had…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register