| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 734 2005 SLD 734 2005 PLD 658 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.1461 of 1999, decision dated: 6-04-2005. (On appeal from the judgment dated 6-11-1997 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in R.F.A. No.83 of 1990).
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, M. JAVED BUTTAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.1461 of 1999, decision dated: 6-04-2005. (On appeal from the judgment dated 6-11-1997 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in R.F.A. No.83 of 1990).
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, M. JAVED BUTTAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Ch. MUNEER HUSSAIN
VS
Mst. WAZEERAN MAI alias Mst. WAZIR MAI Ch. MUNEER HUSSAIN vs Mst. WAZEERAN MAI alias Mst. WAZIR MAI
Law:
Section:
(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)------S. 16---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 42- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 78---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and declaration---Beneficiaries of the documents executed by ignorant/illiterate/Parda-observing ladies, have to prove by overwhelming evidence, the execution of such documents by such ladies and they have to further prove that such transactions and such documents were explained to the executants who had independent advice at the relevant time---Semi-illiterate Parda-observing females are entitled to the protection of law governing such ladies---Court has to be very careful in recording findings as to the execution of any agreement by such ladies and it would not be sufficient to show that the document was read over to the Parda-observing lady but it must further be proved that she understood its nature and effect---Where the evidence had not established that the documents in question were executed by such a lady or that they were executed by her voluntarily out of her own free-will and that at the time of execution of the documents she had an independent advice of her close relatives and that the contents of the documents were read over to her and nature of the transaction was explained to her, onus was on the beneficiary of the document which he failed to discharge in the present case---Beneficiary of the document had not been able to point out any non-reading of evidence or illegality in the impugned of the High Court wherein execution of documents by the lady was disbelieved---Lady was being continuously victimized and was out of possession of her landed property for the last 26 years and was suffering because the beneficiaries of the document thought that she being a helpless lady, he could grab her property---Supreme Court declined interference. Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsoonnissa Begum and Jodonath Bose v. Shumsoonisa Begum (Moore's Indian Appeals 1863-65 Vol-II 551); Farid-un-Nisa v. Mukhtar.Ahmad and another (1925 Indian Appeals-342); Sudisht Lal v. Mussamut Sheobarat Kore PC Vol.VII Cal. 245); Tara Kumari v. Chandra Mauleshwar AIR 1931 PC 303; Sm. Karunamoyee Debiβ¦
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