1991 PLP 1281 (SCMR)
Mst. NOOR BIBI and 9 others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1281 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and |
| Parties | Mst. NOOR BIBI and 9 others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1281 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1281 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1281 (SCMR) (Mst. NOOR BIBI and 9 others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ataullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Naveed Shahryar, Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 1989.
- Ch. Ataullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Naveed Shahryar, Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13-1-87, passed in RSA No. 86/85)
S.12
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Specific performance of agreement
Scribe of disputed sale-deed on basis of which respondent/vendee had filed suit for specific performance of agreement, had supported execution of that sale-deed by petitioners/vendors in favour of respondent/vendee
Scribe of sale-deed was more nearly related to and had deeper connection with petitioners than respondent
In absence of any evidence on record that said sale-deed was executed by fraudulent manner, evidence of scribe was rightly considered by High Court
Case thus was not fit for further consideration
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Specific performance of agreement‑‑‑Scribe of disputed sale‑deed on basis of which respondent/vendee had filed suit for specific performance of agreement, had supported execution of that sale‑deed by petitioners/vendors in favour of respondent/vendee ‑‑‑Scribe of sale‑deed was more nearly related to and had deeper connection with petitioners than respondent‑‑‑In absence of any evidence on record that said sale‑deed was executed by fraudulent manner, evidence of scribe was rightly considered by High Court‑‑‑Case thus was not fit for further consideration‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Ch. Ataullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Naveed Shahryar, Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13‑1‑1987, whereby regular second appeal of the respondent against the orders of the two Courts below was accepted and his suit was decreed. Nabi Bakhsh predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners sold the property in dispute to Ghulam Rasool respondent on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 14‑12‑1970. He died issueless and without wife on 9‑8‑1971. The respondent brought a suit for specific performance against the petitioners being legal heirs of the vendor. The two Courts below held that no agreement to sell was executed between Nabi Bakhsh deceased and the respondent Ghulam Rasool. On regular second appeal by the respondent, the learned High Court reversed the findings of the two Courts below and decreed the respondents' suit for specific performance, mainly on the ground of misreading of evidence. The learned High Court believed the statement of P.W. Noor Muhammad who was the witness of the documents. A perusal of the record shows that the said Noor Muhammad, the scribe of the sale agreement has plainly stated in his statement that he is more nearly related and has deeper connections with the petitioners than the respondent, even then he has supported the said agreement of sale‑deed in favour the respondent. Thus we are of the view that his statement has rightly been considered by the High Court. There is no evidence on record that the said document was executed by fraudulent manner. Under the circumstances, we do not think it is a fit case for further consideration of this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./N‑222/S Petition dismissed,