1990 PLP 1176 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SAEED‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SARDAR BEGUM and 4 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1176 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SARDAR BEGUM and 4 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1176 (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 1990 PLP 1176 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1176 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SAEED‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SARDAR BEGUM and 4 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jehangir A. Jhoja, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.2 to 5.
- Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 1‑7‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.SA. No.23 of 1986). ‑‑‑S.54‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Attestation by witnesses of agreement to sell‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioner, whose appeal was dismissed by High Court excluding agreement to sell relied upon by him on account of absence of valid attestation, contended that agreement involved in case was not required by law to be attested by witnesses and that document could have been read and relied upon as duly "executed" though without attestation‑‑‑Questions raised in petition requiring examination, leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Regular Second Appeal. The petitioner's suit for specific performance and possession was decreed. On respondents' appeal, the decree was reversed. The petitioner's Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed by the High Court as the agreement to sell relied upon by him was excluded on account of absence of valid "attestation". Learned counsel contended that although the attestation before "execution" would not be treated as proper attestation and for this reason the agreement to sell was liable to be excluded from consideration; yet, he vehemently contended, the agreement to sell involved in this case was not required by law to be attested by witnesses. Only execution was necessary. He, in this behalf, also referred to relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. He further contended that the document could have been read and relied upon as duly "executed" though without attestation; which as argued, was not necessary. This and the other questions raised in this petition require examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which would be necessary for disposal of appeal. No alienation of the property in dispute in the meanwhile. H.B.T./M‑1166/S. Leave granted.