1985 PLP 1705 (SCMR)
MAHMOOD BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH BAKHSH — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1705 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MAHMOOD BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH BAKHSH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1705 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1705 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1705 (SCMR) (MAHMOOD BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH BAKHSH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Inayatullah; Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th February, 1985.
- Inayatullah; Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10-10-1977, passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 467 of 1967).
Art. 185(3)--Contract Act (I of 1872), S. 17 Fraudulent transaction--Plea that vendor was insane at time of sale made by him--No such proof had been brought on record inasmuch as doctor examining vendor had opined that vendor was suffering from senile dementia in 1963 while sale was made in 1962--Leave to appeal refused in circum stances.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th February, 1985. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 10‑10‑1977, dismissing their Regular Second Appeal.
2. Shamsuddin sold some agricultural land to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.3,000 and a mutation (No. 680) regarding this sale was sanctioned on 20‑6‑1982. Subsequently Mahmood Bakhsh etc. (petitioners herein) filed a suit alleging that Shamsuddin never sold the land, nor had he received any consideration and the alleged sale and mutation regarding the sale had been obtained by the respondents by fraud. The suit was contested by the respondents. After framing issues and recording evidence the learned trial Court decreed the suit. The respondents filed an appeal which was accepted by the District Judge, Multan vide order, dated 10‑6‑1967, and the judgment of the learned trial Court was reversed and the petitioners' suit was dismissed. Against this judgment the petitioners went up to the High Court in Second Appeal (No. 467 of 1967), which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Hence the present petition.
3. The main question in the case was as to whether or not Shamsuddin was insane at the time of the sale made by him (i.e. on 20‑6‑1962). After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned judgments we feel that the learned first appellate Court and the High Court were justified in holding that no such proof had been brought on the record inasmuch as that the doctor who examined Shamsuddin had opined that he was suffering from senile dementia in 1963, while the sale was made by him earlier, in June 1962. We do not consider it a proper case for interference by this Court. The petition is consequently dismissed. A.A. Leave refused.