| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 435 1985 SLD 435 1985 SCMR 214 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.141-R of 1984, decision dated: 18-11-1984. (On appeal from the Judgment and Order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 3-4-1984 in R.S.A. No.136 of 1983)
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, NASIM HASAN SHAH AND SHAFIUR REHMAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petition No.141-R of 1984, decision dated: 18-11-1984. (On appeal from the Judgment and Order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 3-4-1984 in R.S.A. No.136 of 1983)
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, NASIM HASAN SHAH AND SHAFIUR REHMAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. UMMATUL WAHEED and others
VS
Mst. NASIRA KAUSAR and others
Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)
Section: 45,47,67,73
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
(a) Evidence Act (I of 1872)--Ss.45 & 47--Court is entitled to compare handwriting even if there be an opinion of an expert on subject--Examination by an expert in every case, held, not directed by any rule of law.--[Evidence]. Ali Ahmad alias Ali Ahmed Mia v. The State PLD 1962 S C 102 and S.M. Zahir v. Fazal Ali Ajmeri 1974 S C M R 490 affirmed. Molapo Mojela v. Thabo Lenotholi Mojela A I R 1928 P C 276 and Province of Punjab and another v. Mst. Noor Bibi and 3 others 1981 CLC 1082 ref. (b) Evidence Act (1 of 1872)-- ---S.67---Evidence of attesting witness of a document who admitted that he had not seen signing of such document by signatory, held, was of little value.--[Evidence--Witness]. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art.185(3)--Evidence Act (I of 1872), S.73--Disputed signatures-Petitioner's counsel on insistence, getting comparison done by High Court--High Court affirming view of first appellate court that signatures differed--Supreme Court even after looking into documents which were sought to be referred to, not coming to any different conclusion--Leave to appeal against conclusion of High Court refused. ORDER SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioners who have been unsuccessful as plaintiffs seeking specific performance of an agreement seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated the 3rd of April, 1984 whereby their regular second appeal was dismissed with costs throughout. Asif Hussain, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants respondents was allotted as a Government servant free of cost a plot of land measuring 9 marlas in Satellite Town, Rawalpindi. Niaz Muhammad Quraishi predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondent No.l was his father-in-law and under a family arrangement came to occupy the premises. Niaz Muhammad died in 1974. A suit was instituted by the petitioners against Asif Hussain claiming that under an oral agreement he had agreed to sell this plot in favour of their predecessor-in-interest for Rs.10,000 and Niaz Muhammad had made construction on the plot. The agreement was formally reduced to writing on 11th of December, 1968 after the entire price had been paid. The claim of the…
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