| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1995 SLG 909 1995 SLD 909 1995 CLC 105 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 217-D of 1989, heard on 13-07-1994, hearing dates: 11th, 12th and 13-07-1994
MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J
Khawaja Muhammad Farooq for Petitioner. Bashir Ahmad Ansari for
Respondents
Civil Revision No. 217-D of 1989, heard on 13-07-1994, hearing dates: 11th, 12th and 13-07-1994
MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J
Khawaja Muhammad Farooq for Petitioner. Bashir Ahmad Ansari for
Respondents
Mst. IOBAL BEGUM-
VS
ABDUL GHAFFAR and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Interpretation of documents------Maxim "ex antecedentibus et consequentibus fit optima interpretatio", rule of---Every contract is to be construed with reference to its object and the whole of its terms---Whole content must be considered in endeavouring to collect the intention of the parties, even though the immediate object of inquiry be the meaning of an isolated clause---Sense and meaning of the parties in any particular part of instrument may be collected ex antecedentibus et consequentibus fit optima interpretatio (every part of document may be brought into action in order to collect from the whole one uniform and consistent sense, if that may be done). Chitty's Treatise on the Law of Contracts, (10th Edn.) p. 151 rel. L.D.A. v. Mrs. Mussarat Imtiaz PLD 1993 Lah. 933 ref. (b) Interpretation of documents--- ---- Court, in the construction of all documents, should not confine itself to the force of particular expression, but to collect the intention of parties from the whole instrument taken together but, whereby use of general words such intention was clearly and unequivocally expressed, Court would be bound by it, however capricious it may be, unless it be plainly controlled by other parts of the instrument. Barton v. Fitzgerald (1812) 15 Est 530 rel. (c) Interpretation of documents--- ---- When words in operative part of any instrument were ambiguous, recitals could be used as a test to discover the intention of parties and to fix the true meaning of those words---Clear words in the operative part of an instrument, however, cannot be controlled by recitals. Hamid Bakshu v. Ibrahim Meah PLD 1956 Dacca 132 and L.DA. v. Mrs. Mussarat Imtiaz PLD 1993 Lah. 933 rel. (d) Transfer of Property Act (IX of 1882)--- ----S. 54---Sale-deed---Interpretation of---Plain language of document in question, indicated in unequivocal and categorical terms that plaintiff had made sale of his entire share in favour of defendant---Words used in document of sale 'were Saalam Hissa, which mean full/entire share and such words are antagonistic to the term "Adha" or "Juzvi" ---Sale-deed contained no discord between the recital and operative part of the document---Express and…
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