| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1982 SLG 324 1982 SLD 324 1982 SCMR 435 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 734 of 11975, decision dated: 16-12-1980. (On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court dated 14-3-1975 in R. S. A. No. 34-63/LHR.)
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH, JJ
Muhammad Aslam Mian, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 734 of 11975, decision dated: 16-12-1980. (On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court dated 14-3-1975 in R. S. A. No. 34-63/LHR.)
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH, JJ
Muhammad Aslam Mian, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
RAHMAT ALI
VS
TUFAIL MUHAMMAD
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Art. 185(3)-Benami transaction-Finding in High Court as to transaction being not benami based on proved appreciation of facts and circumstances-Order of High Court, held, needs no interference Leave to appeal declined. -[Benami]. ORDER ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-The petitioner filed a suit for grant of declaration that the suit land belonged to him and the respondent be restrained by issue of injunction, from interfering with his possession of the suit land. Petitioner's claim to the suit land was based on the plea that he had purchased it, as a benamidar, in the name of the respondent who is his maternal cousin. The respondent resisted the claim on several pleas, but the learned Civil Judge who tried the case decreed the suit in petitioner's favour. On appeal by the respondent, the District Judge did not agree with the findings of the learned trial Judge and he reversed the judgment and the decree passed in petitioner's favour. The petitioner then filed second appeal before Lahore High Court which was dismissed in limine on 10-6-1963 on the ground that the suit was bit by the doctrine of pari delicto and the findings of fact reached by the first Appellate Court were not open to interference. On appeal, by special leave, being Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1968 this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, and ordered rehearing of the appeal in the High Court on the ground that the question whether principle of pari delicto was applicable or not deserved fuller consideration, and the High Court should not have derided it by way of summary disposal of the second appeal. On remand, the High Court examined the case in the light of the observations made by this Court, and dismissed the second appeal by the judgment dated 14-5-1975. Petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Mian, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the learned Judge in the High Court has failed to determine with precision the benami nature of the transaction according to the well-settled principle of law. In this regard, learned counsel submits that the crucial points for consideration are the motive, the payment of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492