2004 PLP 982 (SCMR)
ALLAH DITTA through Legal Representatives and others — Petitioners Versus NAEEM RAZA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 982 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA through Legal Representatives and others — Petitioners Versus NAEEM RAZA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 982 (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 2004 PLP 982 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 982 (SCMR) (ALLAH DITTA through Legal Representatives and others — Petitioners Versus NAEEM RAZA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Iftikhar Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Lateef, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Aamir Raza, A. Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood- ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2002.
- 3. Heard Mr. Mian Iftikhar Shah, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners who mainly contended that the well based verdict given by the learned trial Court has been reversed without any lawful justification resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that the factum of minority could not be proved by adducing any cogent or concrete documentary evidence which aspect of the matter escaped notice of the learned High Court and resulted in serious prejudice.
- 4. We have carefully examined the contentions as mentioned herein above. The judgment impugned has been examined with care and caution. The entire record has been thrashed out with the eminent assistance of learned Advocate Supreme Court. After having gone through the entire evidence we are not persuaded to agree that the factum of minority could not be proved for the reason that Matriculation Certificate (Exh.P.3) was got exhibited which makes it abundant clear that respondent was born on 14-12-1963 and was admittedly minor on 19-6-1980 when the transaction concerning sale in question Was made. Nothing could be produced in rebuttal in spite of ample opportunities. The age .factor being question of fact has rightly been determined after having careful analysis of evidence by the learned Single Judge in Chamber and no infirmity or illegality could be pointed out by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner on the basis whereof any interference could be made.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14-2-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 1652 of 1990).
S.8
Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.11
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Sale by minor and his step mother
Challenge to such sale by minor to the extent of his share by filing suit
Trial Court dismissed suit, but Appellate Court decreed the same, which decree was upheld by High Court in revision filed by defendant
Factum of minority
Proof--Matriculation Certificate got exhibited made abundant clear that plaintiff was born on 14-12-1963 and was minor on 19-6-1980, when transaction concerning sale in question was made-- Nothing could be produced in rebuttal in spite of ample opportunities-- Age factor being question of fact had rightly been determined by High Court after careful analysis of evidence
No infirmity or illegality could be pointed out in impugned judgment
Supreme Court dismissed petition being devoid of merits.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14-2-2001 passed by learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court; Lahore, in Chamber whereby the civil revision preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the judgment impugned are to the effect that "vide sale registered on 19-6-1980, Naeem Raza-respondent No.1 and his step mother Mst. Bashir Begum respondent No.2, are alleged to have sold the suit property in favour of the petitioners Nos.1 to 5, this sale was challenged by Naeem Raza to the extent of his share/alienation in the property, through a suit filed on 7-12-1983, claiming that he was born on 14-12-1963 and, thus, was a minor at the time of the alleged transaction. This suit was contested by the petitioners, averring that the respondent was major at the time of sale and thus, a valid transaction had been effected in their favour." Issues were framed and after recording evidence pro and contra the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit by means of judgment dated 2-10-1989 which was reversed by learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 1-7-1990 which was assailed by filing revision which has been rejected, hence this petition.
3. Heard Mr. Mian Iftikhar Shah, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners who mainly contended that the well based verdict given by the learned trial Court has been reversed without any lawful justification resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that the factum of minority could not be proved by adducing any cogent or concrete documentary evidence which aspect of the matter escaped notice of the learned High Court and resulted in serious prejudice.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as mentioned herein above. The judgment impugned has been examined with care and caution. The entire record has been thrashed out with the eminent assistance of learned Advocate Supreme Court. After having gone through the entire evidence we are not persuaded to agree that the factum of minority could not be proved for the reason that Matriculation Certificate (Exh.P.3) was got exhibited which makes it abundant clear that respondent was born on 14-12-1963 and was admittedly minor on 19-6-1980 when the transaction concerning sale in question Was made. Nothing could be produced in rebuttal in spite of ample opportunities. The age .factor being question of fact has rightly been determined after having careful analysis of evidence by the learned Single Judge in Chamber and no infirmity or illegality could be pointed out by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner on the basis whereof any interference could be made. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. S.A.K./A-291/S Petition dismissed.