Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 389 1994 SLD 389 1994 PLD 326
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1992, decision dated: 15-11-1993. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 11-1-1992 passed in RSA 94 of 1990).
SALEEM AKLSTAR, SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, JJ
Ch. Muzamal Khan, Advocate Supreme Covet and Rana Maqbool A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Khawaja Saeeduz Zafar, Advocate Supreme Covet and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent)..

IRSHAD HUSSAIN

VS

IJAZ HUSSAIN and 9 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss.12 & 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.100---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185---Concurrent findings on basis of appraisal of evidence---Significance---Suit for specific performance of agreement to Sep decreed by two Courts below---High Court in second appeal, set aside decrees and s of Courts below and dismissed plaintiffs suit ---Validity---The Court as also First Appellate Court had exhaustively dealt with the evidence and documents produced during trial---Courts below were correct in bold that defendant had taken contradictory stand in reply to notice and written statement and further that signatures on document in question, were admitted but were denied only on ground of misrepresentation and fraud ---Defendant had denied her exclusive ownership but she was proved to be the sole owner property in question---Such contradictions were noted by Trial Court as also by First Appellate Court and examining them in juxtaposition with the state diet of defence witnesses in which no contradiction or infirmity was found verdict was given in favour of plaintiff---Such concurrent finding of fact could not have been set aside merely because there was misreading of evidence or some other conclusion could have been drawn from the testimony of witnesses--­ Appraisal of evidence on basis of calculation and coming to a different conclusion in second appeal, thus, could not be justified---Inadequacy of price could hardly be a ground for refusing specific performance---Judgment rendered by High Covet in second appeal was set aside and that of Trial Court as affirmed by First Appellate Covet was restored with direction to plaintiff to deposit balance amount with specified mark up from the date of suit till payment. Ali Mohammed Khan v. Riazuddin Khera PLD 1981 Kar. 170 rel. (b) Pardanashin lady--- ---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.i18---Document executed by a Pardanashin lady --Burden of proof---Principle governing pardanashin, ignorant and illiterate women whether extended to an educated lady --- Burden 1994 P L D Supreme Covet 326 of proof that any document purported to have been executed by a pardanashin lady…
🔒
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