| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 1792 2009 SLD 1792 2009 SCMR 1169 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.915 of 2005 out of Civil Petition No.111-Q of 2004, decision dated: 15-04-2009
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR AND SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.915 of 2005 out of Civil Petition No.111-Q of 2004, decision dated: 15-04-2009
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR AND SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS and others
VS
ESSA JAN and others
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,55,39
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---Ss. 42, 55 & 39---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of mutation---Plaintiffs had filed the suit on the ground that their forefathers had purchased the property in question about 131 years ago through a Sanad/writing, whereafter, they and then the' plaintiffs had been cultivating the same without any interference---Document of purchase was shown to have been executed in presence of the marginal witnesses, but neither any of them had signed the said document nor it was attested by any competent authority, so much so that even the place of residence of the vendor had not been disclosed in the same---Said old document had not been placed on record and exhibited in evidence---Document which was not part of judicial record, its judicial notice could not be taken---Courts below i.e. the Trial Court as well as appellate Court head not taken into consideration the said Sanad/document while deciding the suit against the plaintiffs because they had not been able to produce sufficient convincing evidence to establish their asscertions made in the plaint and the said findings had been affirmed by the High Court vide the impugned ---Plaintiffs had admitted in the plaint that in the record property was entered in favour of someone else who was forefather of the defendants which established that defendants were the owners of the property---Concurrent findings of fact rendered by the three courts below against the plaintiffs could not be interfered with by the Supreme Court---Plaintiffs had not pointed out any illegality, infirmity, jurisdictional detect, misreading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned warranting interference by Supreme Court---Appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court. (b) Judgment--- ----Law declared by courts is never retrospectively effective and it only takes effect after the announcement of the or the date notified by the court. Qazal Bash Waqf and others v. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and others PLD 1990 SC 99 ref. (c) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.115]--- ----Preamble---Provisions of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 had been declared against the Injunctions of Qur'an…
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