Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1331 1998 SLD 1331 1998 SCMR 530
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 78 of 1995, decision dated: 6th June. 1995
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, FAZAL ILAHI KHAN AND MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO, 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

ABDUL JABBAR

VS

ABDUL SATTAR

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--S. 12---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Suit for specific performance of "Iqrarnama" relating to land in question---Plaintiff claimed in his suit that defendant had mortgaged with possession his land in question for five years in consideration of specified amount and that in default of return of mortgaged debt with profit by defendant to plaintiff, defendant was bound to sell property in question to him for specified amount---Plaintiff's prayer in suit was that period of mortgage having expired neither mortgage debt was returned nor profit amounting to specified sum of money was paid, therefore, defendant was deemed to have been paid consideration amount due to his failure to return mortgage debt and payment of profit---Trial Court dismissed plaintiff's suit, while Appellate Court decreed the same---High Court on appreciation of evidence set aside Appellate Court's and decree and restored that of Trial Court---Validity---Defendant had claimed that he had every faith in his brother (plaintiff) and that his signature on deed in question was obtained through fraud---Onus was, thus, heavily on plaintiff to establish that "Iqrarnama" in question, was consciously executed by defendant---Defendant was not suggested in cross-examination that he had intentionally signed Iqrarnama in question or that he had mortgaged property in question, in favour of plaintiff on receiving money consideration---Even terms and conditions of Iqrarnama were not put to defendant in his cross-examination---High Court, thus, rightly came to conclusion that execution of deed had not been proved by plaintiff and that finding of Trial Court was based on proper appreciation of evidence, while that of Appellate Court suffered from defect in relying on unregistered document---High Court's view appeared to be correct on basis of material on record---Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th June, 1995. JUDGMENT MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.---Petitioner Abdul Jabbar has assailed the judgment, dated 12-9-1994 by the…
πŸ”’
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