| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 2807 2001 SLD 2807 2001 PLD 394 |
Sindh High Court
Civil Revision No. 25 of 1994, decided on 26th March, 2001
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF LEGHARI, J
Shaikh Fazal-ud-Din for Petitioner. Nazir Ahmed Awan for
Respondent.
Civil Revision No. 25 of 1994, decided on 26th March, 2001
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF LEGHARI, J
Shaikh Fazal-ud-Din for Petitioner. Nazir Ahmed Awan for
Respondent.
ABDUL KHALIQPetitidner
VS
ABDUL GHANI
Law:
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, R.4 & S.115---Revision---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction contending that the plaintiff had purchased the land through a sale-deed wherein defendant, who was his brother, was shown to be co-owner of 1/4th share as Benami out of brotherly love though the consideration for the property was paid by the plaintiff---Possession of the land remained with the plaintiff to the extent oz 3/4th share while the remaining land was in the possession of the defendant---Plaintiff stated that during the year 1978 the defendant, surrendered his right in the said land to the extent of his share and in return thereof he received an auto-rickshaw which belonged to his son which was ultimately sold by the defendant---Plaintiff prayed for a declaration to the effect that he was the owner of the suit land as the defendant has sold hi, share- to him---Defendant having denied the allegations, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court which was affirmed in appeal---Contention of the plaintiff was that entire amount for consideration of the l/4th share oz land was paid to the defendant though he had not spent anything for that and name of defendant was entered in the record of rights out of brotherly love and affection and he was just a Benami owner of the property and his denial was evasive under O.VII1, R.4, C.P.C. and suit should have been decreed on the basis of such evasive denial---Validity---Evidence led by the parties had been elaborately evaluated and discussed by the two Courts below---Plaintiff had failed to prove that he delivered the rickshaw to the defendant as a consideration of purchase of his share of land---Two pleas agitated by the plaintiff were contradictory to each other---Judgments of two Courts did not suffer from illegalities or infirmities ---No misreading or misappreciation of evidence had been pointed out---High Court declined interference in --vision. ORDER 1 and 2. The petitioner and the respondent are real brothers. Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating therein that he had purchased the agricultural land being survey…
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