| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2571 2004 SLD 2571 2004 PLD 255 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 204 of 1988; decided on 14th November, 2003. DATE of hearing: 3rd October, 2003
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J
Muhammad Rashid Bhatti for Appellant. Ch. Zafar Iqbal and Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for
Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 204 of 1988; decided on 14th November, 2003. DATE of hearing: 3rd October, 2003
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J
Muhammad Rashid Bhatti for Appellant. Ch. Zafar Iqbal and Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for
Respondents
MUHAMMAD ZOFIGAN
VS
MUHAMMAD KHAN and 49 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Benami transaction-------Suit by minor challenging sale of his land by father---Plaintiff's plea was that suit-land was gifted to him by his mother having inherited same from her father; that he was minor at the time of sale, which was not contracted by him nor did he receive sale price thereof nor did he mutate land to the defendants---Defendants' plea was that such sale was made in their favour by minor's father as real owner, while minor was its ostensible owner---Onus of issue relating to status of plaintiff's father as real owner was on the defendants---Plaintiff's witnesses including plaintiff supported his claim, but not a single question was asked from them by defendants during cross-examination regarding actual purchase/ownership or ostensible ownership of suit-land---Plaintiff produced in evidence mutation of gift in his favour by his mother, Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari reflecting his name therein--Defendants failed to prove that suit-land was in fact purchased by plaintiff's father, who actually paid its sale price and got same transferred in his wife's name as Benami owner, which she subsequently gifted to plaintiff upon instructions and desire of her husband---Defendants did not summon plaintiff's father or mother as witnesses to prove their plea of Benami---Plaintiff's father and mother had never claimed to be real owners of suit-land---Held, plaintiff was not ostensible owner of suit-land, but was its real owner. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- -----S. 11---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.7---Sale of minor's property by his father---Validity---Vendor was not of 18 years age to be sui juris to validly enter into sale contract---Such sale was void ab initio having been contracted during incapacity of vendor, thus, had no legal existence---No rights or liabilities would arise in favour of vendee from such void transaction---Such contract could neither be enforced nor set up as a valid defence plea to claim thereunder a right or title---Invalidity of such transaction arose from a legal incapacity, which was, thus, incurable---Such sale was void and not voidable. (c) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 41---Contract Act…
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