Case Details

Citation(s)
1971 SLG 177 1971 SLD 177 1971 SCMR 143
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-115 of 1970, decision dated: 14th January 1971
SAJJAD AHMAD AND WAHIDDUDIN AHMAD, 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

Mst. SUGHRABAI AND 10 others

VS

FIDA HUSSAIN MOHAMMADALI KERAI AND another--Respondents

Law:

Section:

Words and phrases-"Goodwill"-Means use of name of business and reputation acquired by a business firm "Pugree" money-Not goodwill. A. Aziz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. . Date of hearing : 14th January 1971. ORDER WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi, in Second Appeal No. 91 of 1965. By this order, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim of the petitioners. Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are that Badruddin M. Ismailjee filed a suit in the Court of 5th Sub-Judge, First Class, Karachi, against the respondents on the allegation that respondent Fida Hussain had borrowed Rs. 10,000 from him and out of this loan he had only repaid a sum of Rs. 2,400 and on the 29th June 1356, he executed a promissory note for the balance of Rs. 7,600 in favour .of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 was holding this pronote as benami on his behalf. On these allegations he filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,968 inclusive of a sum of Rs. 1,368 as interest. The suit was contested by the respondents. Respondent No. 1 denied having received any consideration for the promissory note and also denied that he had borrowed Rs. 10,000. He pleaded that he had purchased a shop for Rs. 10,000 under an agreement witnessed by a partner of Messrs Ameejee Valeejee & Sons and under this agreement, Rs. 2,4.0 was fixed for goods lying in the shop and the balance of Rs. 7,600 was the pugree fixed for the premises. He further pleaded that as the title of the deceased Badruddin was not clear, the pugree was payable for two Sears after the transfer of the shop to him. He, therefore, contended that the pronote was for consideration which was illegal and could not be, therefore, enforced. He also pleaded that deceased Badruddin had no cause of action as the promissory note on which he has sued had not been endorsed in his favour. In the suit as many as 14 issues were framed. The learned Sub-Judge, after recording the evidence of the parties and their…
🔒
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