| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLD 809 = 1999 CLC 1057 |
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No.3 of 1974, decided on 12th January, 1999.
Presented By: Before Rana Bhagwan Das and Sabihuddin Ahmed, JJ
Iqbal Kazi for Appellants. G.M. Qureshi and Shabbir Ahmad Shaikh for
Respondents
High Court Appeal No.3 of 1974, decided on 12th January, 1999.
Presented By: Before Rana Bhagwan Das and Sabihuddin Ahmed, JJ
Iqbal Kazi for Appellants. G.M. Qureshi and Shabbir Ahmad Shaikh for
Respondents
RAZA HUSSAIN and others---Appellants
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD KHAN and others---Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 12 , 14, 17 , 18
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 14, 17 & 18---Specific performance of contract of sale of land made by female who was Pardanashin and illiterate lady---Protection to Pardanashin and illiterate lady ---Entitlement-- Plaintiff who also happened to be Advocate of vendor lady in different litigations relating to her lands, had claimed that the lady had agreed to sell disputed land for consideration through agreements of sale arrived at between him and vendor lady---Lady who allegedly executed contract of sale having died, her grandsons who were made defendants in suit had alleged that deceased who was a Pardanashin lady was over 100 years of age at the time of execution of alleged agreements of sale and was incapable of exercising her free consent and that deceased lady was absolutely illiterate and plaintiff in his capacity as her standing counsel might have got several documents thumb-impressed by her without appraising her of their implications---Court had concluded that alleged agreements of sale executed by lady were not binding on defendants as plaintiff was unable to discharge burden of satisfying Court that she had executed agreements with full knowledge and consent---Validity---Vendor lady who was proved to be Pardanashin and illiterate was entitled to protection which law had afforded to illiterate and Pardanashin women and said protection was different from one of fraud or misrepresentation vitiating a contract---Allegation of fraud must be proved by a person alleging same, whereas when a transaction was made by a Pardanashin lady, onus was always on person claiming advantage of such transaction to show that same was made with free-will of Pardanashin lady---No fault could be found with judgment of Court on ground that Court had examined said question irrespective of fact that fraud was not proved in transaction. Mst. Hawa v. Muhammad Yousuf PLD 1969 Kar. 325; Fazal Muhammad Bhatti v. Mst. Sadia Akhtar 1993 SCMR 2018; Province of East Pakistan v. Major Nawab Khuwaja Hassan Askary PLD 1971 SC 82; Zuhra Bibi v. Asghar Khan 1988 SCMR 4; Chiragh Bibi v. Rashida Begum PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 209 and Mehmooda…