Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 480 1993 SLD 480 1993 CLC 314
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.1970 of 1987, heard on 28th November, 1992. DATE of hearing: 28th November, 1992.
CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J

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

GHULAM NABI

VS

MUHAMMAD YUSUF and others

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

Section: 79,73

Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

Section: 10,11

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 79---Proof of execution of private document---Execution of such document had to be proved by examining the scribe and an attesting witness--­Such persons having not been examined, document in question, would be deemed to have not been proved , and could be excluded from consideration. Muhammad Shafi v. Settlement Commissiner and another PLD 1979 Lah. 790; Nabi Ahmad Shah v. Mirwaiz Muhamad Abdullah and others 1976 SCMR 132; Mst. Fatima Bibi and 7 others v. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and 3 others PLD 1973 Note 23 at P. 34 and Mst. Hafizan Begum and 6 others v. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1974 Note 17 at P.51 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 73---Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11---Non-production of original document before Settlement Authorities---Effect---Joint allottee of shop in dispute---Defendant claimed that plaintiff had surrendered his claim to the extent of his 1/2 share in shop in question and had executed deed of surrender in his fovour---Such deed, however, having not been placed before Settlement Authorities, could not be verified and accepted after notice without recording the statement of plaintiff---Deed of surrender, therefore, had no value and on basis thereof, P.T.D. for the whole shop should not have been issued in favour of defendant alone---Permanent Transfer Deed issued in favour of defendant to the extent of plaintiff's share in shop in question, was thus not valid. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 79---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of---Courts below had recorded very cogent reasons for decreeing plaintiff's suit by placing reliance upon circumstantial evidence as also on evidence on record for coming to conclusion that neither document in question, was proved to have been executed nor the same was verified in accordance with law---Original document was also not placed on record--­Findings recorded by Courts below on the question of execution of alleged document being lawful could not be interfered with---Judgments, and decrees of Courts…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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