| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 389 2009 SLD 389 2009 PLD 41 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revisions Nos.715 and 716 of 1991, heard on 4-04-2008
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J
Syed Hamid Ali Mir for Petitioners. Islam Ali Qurashi for
Respondent.
Civil Revisions Nos.715 and 716 of 1991, heard on 4-04-2008
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J
Syed Hamid Ali Mir for Petitioners. Islam Ali Qurashi for
Respondent.
FAIZ MUHAMMAD through Legal Representatives and others
VS
Mst. KHURSHID BIBI
Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)
Section: 42(7)
Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)
Section: 42(7)
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts.117 & 120---Pardanashin lady---Onus to prove---Shifting of onus--- Scope---Where a party wants to derive benefit from transaction, where a Pardanashin lady is a party, in such a transaction it is for opposite party to prove that such lady actually entered into transaction and consented to sanction of mutation---Onus is never static and shifts during trial. Janat Bibi v. Sikandar Aliand others PLD 1990 SC 642 rel. (b) Onus--- ----Onus is never static and shifts during trial. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Declaration of title--Pardanashin lady---Identification---Judgment at variance---Plaintiff ladies claimed to be owners in possession of suit-land and assailed mutations of sale on ground of those being a result of fraud and collusion---Trial Court dismissed the suit but Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs---Validity---Statements of two prosecution witnesses and one defence witness, negated the story of presence of ladies at the time of sanction of mutation in question--Lumberdar or local councilor was not called to identify plaintiffs---Absence of any close relative at the time of attestation of mutation to identify vendors, supported the stance of plaintiffs that mutations in question were attested through impersonation---Alleged sale consideration was paid without receipt and defendant stated that whole amount of sale consideration was paid at the time of sanction of mutation but mutation proved otherwise---Mutation mentioned that it was sanctioned for consideration without indicating that amount was paid at the time of sanctioning of mutation---No witness of defendant came forward to state in witness box that the consideration was paid in his presence at the time of attestation of mutation in question---Defendant neither produced Fard Patwar nor Pert Sarkar and had admitted that Roznamcha Waqiatti was also not available---In absence of relevant material record of Revenue Department, veracity and genuineness of mutation in question could not be established---No instance of misreading or non-reading of evidence was found in passed by Lower…
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