2006 PLP 1963 (MLD)
Mst. MEHRUNNISA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASHEED KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1963 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. MEHRUNNISA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASHEED KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1963 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1963 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1963 (MLD) (Mst. MEHRUNNISA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASHEED KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arif Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12
Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale
Plaintiff claimed that defendant through her attorney had executed agreement to sell whereby she agreed\ to sell suit-land to him
Suit was resisted by defendant alleging that she had neither sold suit-land to plaintiff nor had she received any consideration for the same
Plaintiff was supposed to prove execution of alleged agreement to sell, but he had not produced marginal witness of said agreement and no explanation was given by him for that!` serious omission
Attorney of defendant produced by plaintiff, had deposed that plaintiff had not paid any amount to defendant, but had agreed to do so on his own subsequently--Attorney of defendant also testified that later on defendant approached plaintiff in respect of sale consideration, but plaintiff failed to pay her
Plaintiff who was brother of defendant and did not make payment of consideration, was not entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance
Trial Court dismissed suit, but Appellate Court reversed findings of the Trial Court on extraneous considerations, without taking into consideration circumstances of the case
Appellate decree being not maintainable, was set aside and that of the Trial Court was affirmed.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioner/defendant, namely, Mst. Mehrunnisa, is the sister of Muhammad Rasheed Khan, respondent/plaintiff. Both parties along with the other legal heirs of their father Taha Khan inherited his estate. The petitioner through devolution inherited 15 kanals of land, which is subject-matter, of the present litigation.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit claiming that the petitioner through her attorney Saifullah had executed agreement to sell (Exh.P.1), dated 16-8-1994 and agreed to sell the suit-land to him. The suit was resisted by the petitioner/defendant who claimed that she had not sold the suit-land to the respondent and nor had she received any consideration for the same.
3. In the above circumstances, it was for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the execution of Exh.P.I. One of the marginal witnesses, namely, Khatir Juma was not produced by the respondent/plaintiff. There is no explanation on the record for this serious omission. Saifullah was produced by the respondents as P.W.3. He deposed that the respondent had not paid any amount to the, petitioner but had agreed to do so at his own subsequently. He also testified that later on the petitioner approached him in respect of the sale consideration, but the respondent failed to pay her despite his efforts.
4. In the circumstances, considering that the marginal witness, Khatir Juma was not examined, the execution of Exh.P.1. was not proved. Secondly, even if the agreement was proved, the testimony of Saifullah (P.W.3) is sufficient to establish that the petitioner was not paid. In view, of the fact that the respondent was the brother of the petitioner and did not make payment of the consideration, he was not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance.
5. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent on 8-6-2000. The appellate Court reversed this finding on extraneous considerations. The appellate Court did not take note of the above circumstances and nor did it address the reasoning of the learned trial Court. In the circumstances, the appellate decree is not legally sustainable. It is, therefore, set aside. As a result, the decree of the learned trial Court, dated 8-6-2000 is affirmed.
6. The petitioner shall also be entitled to her costs throughout. H.B.T./M-1420/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision allowed.