Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2005 2006 SLD 2005 2006 CLC 482
Sindh High Court
Suit No.1136 of 2002, decision dated: 25-01-2006.
FAISAL ARAB, J

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

Messrs KASHMIRIAN PVT. LTD. through Shomaila Loan Marker and 6 others--Plaintiffs

VS

GHULAM NABI GUJJAR and another----Defendants

Law:

Section:

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art. 129(g)---Non-production/withholding of best evidence by a party without showing any plausible reason---Effect---Presumption would be that had such evidence been produced, same would have gone against such party---Non-appearance of a party as his own witness in support of his case would make his claim highly doubtful---Principles. Sughran Bibi v. Mst. Aziz Begum 1996 SCMR 137 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.2(12)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.109---Suit of possession, declaration and recovery of mesne profits---Dispute as to ownership of flat in an apartment built by a builder---Plaintiff claimed purchase of suit flat from its builder, while defendant claimed its purchase from one' "N"---Defendant neither appeared as his own witness nor examined "N", rather examined his son/attorney, who produced sale agreement in favour of "N'I and general power of attorney executed by "N" in favour of the defendant---Failure of plaintiff to prove mesne profits at claimed rate---Admission of defendant's witness regarding current rate of rent of suit flat to be between Rs.5,000 to 5,500---Validity---Such documents did not disclose from whom executants thereof had derived title to suit flat---No buyer would derive a better title than what his seller possessed---Transfer of title to suit flat in favour of defendant by its' builder or a person who derived title from builder had not been proved---Valid title to suit flat in favour of "N" had not been established, thus, defendant could not derive a valid/lawful title from "N"---Defendant, at the time of alleged purchase from "N.", had neither asked for allotment documents issued by builder nor sought confirmation of allotment from builder nor even invited objections from public---Defendant could claim back amount paid to "N", but could not displace plaintiff's right to claim ownership of suit flat---Witness of builder was not asked during cross-examination that suit flat had not been allotted to plaintiff---Non-appearance of defendant as his own witness had made his claim highly doubtful---Plaintiff's suit was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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