1989 SCMR 1940 (PLP)
SAID MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1940 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | SAID MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1940 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1940 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 1940 (PLP) (SAID MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. M. Ashraf Wahla, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 8‑7‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.235 of 1981) ‑‑‑S.39‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)‑‑Cancellation of registered sale‑deed sought on the ground that deed was secured through forged power of attorney‑‑Findings of fact‑‑Petitioner's suit for cancellation of sale‑deed was dismissed throughout‑‑Contention that testimony of attesting witness should not have been relied upon‑‑Supreme Court after hearing the petitioner on said and other questions relating to the findings of fact found that they were not suffering from any infirmity‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The plaintiff in a suit for cancellation of a registered sale‑deed, has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner's plea was that the alleged power of attorney, on the basis of which the questioned deed was executed, itself was a forgery. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit. On appeal the case was remanded for framing additional issues. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit in the second round. The appeal Court and the High Court having upheld the findings of fact by the learned trial Court, the petitioner has now sought leave to appeal. The learned counsel while challenging the findings of fact contended that the testimony of Muhammad Hassan, the attesting witness should not have been relied upon. After hearing him on this and other questions relating to the findings of fact, we feel that they do not suffer from any infirmity. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused. MA.K/S‑408/S Leave refused.