| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 781 2007 SLD 781 2007 CLC 143 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No.95 of 2006, decision dated: 13-10-2006
TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision No.95 of 2006, decision dated: 13-10-2006
TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SHAHD MENA
VS
GUL SADA KHAN and 2 others
Law:
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Suit for declaration---Plaintiff had sought declaration to the effect that she was owner of suit-land and that mutation of said land attested in favour of defendant was based on fraud; and same being illegal was ineffective upon her rights---Concurrent dismissal of suit---Plaintiff, in revision, had alleged that she was illiterate, ignorant, Pardanasheen lady and defendant had fraudulently transferred her entire share in the property in dispute in his name---Claim of defendant was that sale mutation of property in dispute was attested in his favour and that he had paid sale consideration to plaintiff and that plaintiff was fully aware of sale transaction---Sale transaction had been admitted by plaintiff herself in her statement when she was examined as witness---Plaintiff's own witness had also admitted in his statement that in his presence three ladies including plaintiff had affixed their thumb impressions on the mutation through which land in dispute was transferred in the name of defendant---Said evidence had shown that plaintiff had not only knowledge of sale transaction, but was also fully aware of the fact that defendant had constructed his house on the suit property more than 10 years back from the date of filing of the suit---Courts below had rightly appreciated evidence available on record---In absence of any misreading/non-reading of evidence or illegality or any material irregularity, or any jurisdictional error or defect in impugned concurrent findings recorded by the Courts of competent jurisdiction, same could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 2005 SCMR 1832; PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lah. 295; KLR 1985 Civil Cases 84 and 2001 CLC 810 rel. Amanullah Khan Khattak for Petitioner. M. Qasim Khattak for Respondents. ORDER TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J.--- The petitioner-plaintiff filed suit against the respondents/defendants for seeking declaration to the effect that she was owner to the extent of her Shari share in land measuring 57 Kanals, 3 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.42, 43 and 93, Khata No.195/176 situated at Mauza Jehangiri Tehsil Takht Nasrati District Karak andβ¦
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