1982 PLP 786 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF-Petitioner Versus EJAZ HUSSAIN alias IJAZ KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 786 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- S. 53-A read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Leave to appeal-New point-Contention that existence of written agreement being not established requirement of S. 53-.A not met and report of Handwriting Expert though on file yet not allowed by Court to be read in evidence-Grievance in such regard raised before first appellate Court and such Court finding Expert having not been called in Court and his report having not been exhibited trial Court justified in keeping report out of consideration-Grievance, however, not taken further before High Court either in memo. of appeal or during hearing of argument:---Grievance accordingly not allowed to be raised before Supreme Court.-Expert evidence. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF-Petitioner Versus EJAZ HUSSAIN alias IJAZ KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 786 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 786 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- S. 53-A read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Leave to appeal-New point-Contention that existence of written agreement being not established requirement of S. 53-.A not met and report of Handwriting Expert though on file yet not allowed by Court to be read in evidence-Grievance in such regard raised before first appellate Court and such Court finding Expert having not been called in Court and his report having not been exhibited trial Court justified in keeping report out of consideration-Grievance, however, not taken further before High Court either in memo. of appeal or during hearing of argument:---Grievance accordingly not allowed to be raised before Supreme Court.-Expert evidence. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 786 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF-Petitioner Versus EJAZ HUSSAIN alias IJAZ KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8th March, 1982.
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17-11-1976 of the Lahore High Court, passed in Regular Second Appeals Nos. 884 and 885 of 1976). -- S. 53-A read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Leave to appeal-New point-Contention that existence of written agreement being not established requirement of S. 53-.A not met and report of Handwriting Expert though on file yet not allowed by Court to be read in evidence-Grievance in such regard raised before first appellate Court and such Court finding Expert having not been called in Court and his report having not been exhibited trial Court justified in keeping report out of consideration-Grievance, however, not taken further before High Court either in memo. of appeal or during hearing of argument:
Grievance accordingly not allowed to be raised before Supreme Court.-[Expert evidence]. Abdul Karim v. Fazal Muhammad Shah P L D 1967 S C 411 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Karim v. Fazal Muhammad Shah P L D 1967 S C 411 ref. Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 8th March, 1982. M. S. H. QURESHI, J.‑Mutation No. 219 attested on 27‑12‑1967 recorded the transaction of sale of 83 kanals and 12 marlas of land situate in Mauza Kahinpura. The sale was made by Muhammad Yousaf, in favour of Ejaz and Inam Bari for the consideration of Ra. 12,
000. On 18‑1‑1968, Muhammad Yousaf brought a suit for a declaration that he did not make the sale. A suit was also brought by the vendees for specific performance of the contract of the sale. Both the suits were consolidated and later decided on 24‑5‑1976, in the result of which the suit of Muhammad Yousaf was dismissed while that of the vendees decreed. Muhammad Yousaf appealed in both the cases but failed. He, thereupon, brought Regular Second Appeals Nos. 884 and 885 of 1976 but the same, too, met the same fate on 17‑11‑1976. The High Court took the view that as the oral sale had actually taken place, it was not open to Muhammad Yousaf to challenge the same on the ground that it was against the provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, because an oral sale, even if in violation of section 54, is not void altogether and the defect is curable by getting a document drawn up and registered to perfect the inchoate title of the vendee. For this, the learned Judge relied on Abdul Karim v. Fazal Muhammad Shah P L D 1967 S C 4112. Muhammad Yousaf has moved these petitions for leave to appeal from the judgments of the High Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the requirement of section 53‑A of the Transfer of Property Act was not met inasmuch as the existence of a written agreement is not established. In this connection, he pointed out that the report of the handwriting expert, though on the file, was not allowed to be read in evidence. This grieve an had been raised before the first appellate Court but that Court finding that the handwriting expert had not been called in Court and his report no having been exhibited, held that the trial Court was right in keeping the report out of the ambit of consideration. The grievance was, however, not taken further before the High Court, either in the memoranda of appeal or during the hearing of the arguments. He cannot, therefore, be permitted to raise the point now.
4. No other ground has been made out for justifying an interference. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.