Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLD 566 = 1990 CLC 1591
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.' 158/D of 1990, decided on 6th May, 1990.
Presented By: Before Gul Zarin Kiani, J
Muhammad Younis Bhatti for Petitioners.

Mst. HUSSAIN JAN and 5 others---Petitioners

VERSUS

Mst. CHANNO BI---Respondent

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115 , 54

Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section:

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of---Finding of fact could not be canvassed or upset, unless same was proved to be perverse, based on no evidence or suffered from gross misreading of record. Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 49 & 129---Official acts Presumption relating to---Payment of sale consideration---Proof---Sale-deed executed by vendor in favour of vendee recited therein that sale price was already received by vendor and she acknowledged receipt of sale price---Vendor an illiterate village lady and first cousin of vendee in her plaint and at the trial retreated from the admission about receipt of price and repudiated correctness of recital in sale-deed stating that she had said so merely upon the assurance of vendee who promised to pay the price subsequently---No effective rebuttal of vendor's statement and evidence led by her at the trial was available--Independent of recital relating to receipt of price and its repetition in the endorsement on the sale-deed, payment and receipt of price was not supported by anything in black and white ---Vendee, to the contrary, had made a clear statement before Revenue Officer wherein he admitted that price was not paid by him and agreed to _pay the same till the next tour of Revenue- Officer---Such statement was signed by vendee and Lambardar of the village had also appended his signature---No material was brought on record to dislodge the correctness of mutation proceeding taken with regard to land in question---Presumption would be that official acts arc to be taken to have been duly and properly performed-- Strong indication, on record was available to establish that what was being stated by vendor and recorded by Revenue Officer with regard to non-receipt of price was true, moreso, because defendant did not assert in the witness-box to the contrary---Non-payment of price was thus established on record. Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 103---Object, scope and import of Art. 103---Provision of Art. 103, Qanun -e-Shahadat does not bar a party to let in oral evidence to prove that consideration…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register