| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 1031 1990 SLD 1031 1990 SCMR 1336 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 427-K of 1986, decision dated: 10-09-1987.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN, JJ
Iqbal Kazi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 427-K of 1986, decision dated: 10-09-1987.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN, JJ
Iqbal Kazi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent.
BILAWAL and anothers
VS
ABDUL RAZZAK
Law:
Section:
(a) Evidence Act (I of 1872)-------S. 68---Provisions of S. 68 permit the proof of the execution of a document by examining one attesting witness to prove execution. (b) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)--- ----S. 74---Registrar possesses ample power to direct registration under S: 74 and registration in pursuance of such an order would amount to proper registration. ORDER ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal seeking to call in question the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court dated 30th August, 1986, whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Tharparkar, was dismissed. 2. The facts briefly are that Abdul Razzak respondent herein, filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Umerkot, for declaration and injunction against the Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar/Ex-officio Manager, Incumbered Estates, Mirpurkhas, on the plea that one Ali Gohar, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had sold a shop situated at Dhoro Naro, to the respondent by means of a registered sale-deed dated 22nd August, 1956, in pursuance of which constructive possession was delivered to him by attornment by the tenant of the shop. However, in 1958, the management of Ali Gohar's property was taken over under the provisions of the Sindh Incumbered Estates Act, 1896 and the Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as Manager of the said property had directed the respondent to deposit the rent realized by him from the tenant of the shop in question. Hence the suit. 3. The Deputy Commissioner resisted the suit and in his written statement denied the claim of the respondent. He further pleaded that Ali Gohar was a minor at the time of the alleged sale transaction and was not the sole owner of the property in question a4 his mother was also a co-sharer with him, with the result that Ali Gohar did pot have exclusive power of disposal over the entire property in suit. On these pleas he justified his action. He also took up some legal pleas regarding the maintainability of the suit etc. Both parties produced their evidence on the issues framed by the Court and it is only…
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