| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLG 164 1996 SLD 164 1996 PLD 483 |
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeals Nos.6 and 7 of 1990, heard on13-02-1996. dates of hearing: 11th, 12th and 13-02-1996
CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN AND MUHAMMAD AQIL MIRZA, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Munir Badar for Appellants. Jawad S. Khawaja for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3
Regular First Appeals Nos.6 and 7 of 1990, heard on13-02-1996. dates of hearing: 11th, 12th and 13-02-1996
CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN AND MUHAMMAD AQIL MIRZA, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Munir Badar for Appellants. Jawad S. Khawaja for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3
SHER BAZ KHAN and 73 others --Appellants
VS
Mst. Malkani SAHIBZADI TIWANA and 2 others--Respondents
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 11,183
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 114
(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- Ss. 11 & 183 --- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114 --- Sale of land owned by minor female by persons claiming to be attorneys of father of female --- Validity --Documentary evidence on record clearly established that plaintiff was minor when land owned by her was sold by persons claiming to be attorneys of her father --- Any contract or transaction entered into with minor was void ab initio for minor could not give consent to create any binding contract--Principle of estoppel was also inapplicable in minor's case --- Transaction reflected in specified mutation sanctioned during minority of minor female was void ab initio for being unauhorised, therefore, on basis thereof, vendees named in such mutation did not acquire any. right or title in land in question --- No independent evidence of transaction of sale was produced on basis whereof, mutations in question, had been entered into and sanctioned --- Merely because in the order recorded by Revenue Officer, minor's father was mentioned. to be present or his signatures appeared on mutation sheet would not prove that he had sold land in question, and also for the interest land for welfare of minor --- in order to prove genuineness of oral transaction reflected through mutation of sale, particularly when same was relatable to property of minor and a female, vender must prove by positive evidence that transaction was entered into with free-willing and consent of the minor, that in case of minor, sale was for his/her benefit and welfare, consideration had passed and in proof thereof, there was something in black and white; that in case of a female even if she was major, independent advice was available at the time of entering into transaction; and that in case of sale by attorneys, principal was consulted or that he was not available at the time of entering into transaction, which items of evidence were lacking in the case --- Both on factual and legal plane sales/mutations in question, were proved to be illegal, void and inoperative Against ownership and possessory rights of plaintiff --- Findings rendered by Trial Court on merits were unexceptionable. Mahomedan Law by…
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