1998 PLP 99 (SCMR)
IMRAN HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus LAL DIN and others‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 99 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Rahi Khan, Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasia6 Khan, JJ. |
| Parties | IMRAN HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus LAL DIN and others‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 99 (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 1998 PLP 99 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Rahi Khan, Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasia6 Khan, JJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 99 (SCMR) (IMRAN HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus LAL DIN and others‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Nasrullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th November, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23‑4‑1996 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No.29 of 1995 and C.R. No. 1392 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell‑‑ Dismissal of suit by Trial Court‑‑‑Appellate Court decreed plaintiff's suit‑‑ Decree of Appellate Court affirmed by High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether sale agreement was fake document which purported to have been executed on specified date, did not see light of the day during lifetime of alleged vendor and it was more than one year after his death that plaintiffs brought suit for specific performance of agreement in question; and whether .agreement in question was not duly proved for plaintiff produced scribe of document and only one of marginal witnesses whereas for proof thereof, two marginal witnesses ought to have been produced as provided in Art. 17, Qanun‑e‑Shahadat 1984.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
This order will cover both the above mentined petitions as they seek leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby petitioners' appeal (R.S.A. No.29 of 1995) and their Civil Revision No. 1392 of 1995 have been dismissed.
2. Muhammad Hussain, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners had appointed Rehmat Ali as his attorney on 19-2-1986. The said attorney is stated to have executed two sale agreements dated 12-3-1990, one in respect of an area measuring 6 Marlas and the other for 1 Kanal and 13 Marlas of land belonging to Muhammad Hussain in favour of his (attorney's) brother Lal Din, respondent No.1. Muhammad Hussain died on 6-6-1991. After a year or so thereafter, Lal Din brought two suits against the present petitioners, the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Hussain for specific performance of the aforementioned agreements. Suits were dismissed by the trial Court. Appeals filed by the respondent/plaintiff were allowed by the learned District Judge who decreed the suits. Petitioners preferred second appeal (R.S.A. No.29 of 1995) in respect of 6 Marlas of land and a revision petition (C.R. No. 1392 of 1995) relating to the land measuring 1 Kanal 13 Marlas which as stated above have been dismissed by a learned Judge in the High Court.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sale agreements were fake documents which though purported to have been executed on 12-3-1990 did not see the light of the day during the life time of Muhad Hussian, the owner of the suit land and it was more than a year after his death that the respondent brought the suits for the specific performance of the agreements in question. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the agreements in question were not duly proved as the plaintiff/respondent produced the scribe of the documents and only one of the marginal witnesses whereas for their proof, two marginal witnesses ought to have been produced as provided in Article 17 of Qanun-e Shahadat.
4. Contentions need consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, grantee in both the cases. Stay order issued in Chambers on 3-9-1996 shall continue in force pending the hearing of the appeals. A.A./I-3/S Leave granted.