1989 PLP 1278 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HASSAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus HULAM SHAH and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1278 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HASSAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus HULAM SHAH and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1278 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1278 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1278 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HASSAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus HULAM SHAH and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8 December, 1984 to R.S.A. No.126 of 1984). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petitioners contended that they obtained suit land from the owner through exchange deeds to the effect that they had transferred their two houses in her favour in exchange of the land‑‑Concurrent finding of all the Courts was to the effect that exchange deeds in question were procured by undue influence‑ Finding of fact thus was against the petitioners‑‑Allegation of misreading of record was not supported by evidence‑‑Leave to appeal was refused‑ Respondents were ordered to surrender the two houses belonging to petitioners in case these were still in their possession.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8th December, 1984 whereby R.S.A. of the petitioners was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that Mst. Mastooran owned some land. The case of the petitioners is that they obtained the suit land from her through exchange deed to the effect that they had transferred their two houses in her favour in exchange of her land. Subsequently Mst. Mastooran alongwith her husband Ghulam Shah respondent brought a declaratory suit challenging the validity of the exchange deeds. On her death the minor daughter of the two alongwith her father carried on these proceedings as against the petitioners on the allegation that the exchange deeds were procured by fraud and misrepresentation. The suit was resisted by the petitioners but it was decreed in favour of the respondents. The appeal of the petitioners failed. Thereafter their second appeal as stated above also failed. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel attempted to argue before us that the exchange was genuine that the respondents were still in possession of the houses which were exchanged in lieu of Darya Burd land belonging to Mst. Mastoorap deceased and that there was no fraud or misrepresentation. We have heard learned counsel but the concurrent fining of all the Courts is to the effect that the exchange deeds in question were procured by undue influence and this finding of fact has been recorded against the petitioners. Furthermore it is evident that the allegation of misreading of record was not being supported by the evidence on record. In that view of the matter we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, if the respondents are still in possession of the two houses belonging to the Petitioners. they should surrender possession of the said houses to them. M.B.A./M‑863/S petition dismissed.