1990SCMR1598 (PLP)
GAUHAR REHMAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus JAN ASHBI and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990SCMR1598 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. And Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | GAUHAR REHMAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus JAN ASHBI and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1598 (PLP)?
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 1990SCMR1598 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. And Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1598 (PLP) (GAUHAR REHMAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus JAN ASHBI and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hakeem Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Marooor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 8‑3‑1981 of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, in R.S.A. No.27 of 1976). ‑‑‑‑S. 60‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for redemption of mortgage on payment of specified amount was decreed by Trial Court‑‑‑Defendant's appeal was dismissed by First Appellate Court as also by High Court in second appeal‑‑‑Defendant's plea that he had purchased equity of redemption was repelled by all the Courts‑‑‑Defendant's case depended upon document which he claimed to be a sale‑deed relating to equity of redemption of land in question executed in his favour‑‑‑Alleged vendor denied having executed the document in favour of defendant‑‑‑Such document was not proved in accordance with law‑‑‑All the Courts below including High Court had held concurrently that defendant had no title to property‑‑‑Plaintiff's title on the other hand had been established on record‑‑‑Supreme Court refused to interfere in concurrent findings of fact of Courts below. Respondent No.2 in person.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL OADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑ This judgment will dispose of the civil appeal which has arisen out of the following facts: The respondent No.l brought a suit for redemption of mortgage on payment of Rs.2,
500. He asserted that equity of redemption was gifted to him by the sister of the original owner vide Mutation No.24 attested on 30‑11‑1962. The suit was contested by the appellant on the ground that the respondent No.l had no title to the property and that he had purchased the equity of redemption in the year 1950. Twelve issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties. The learned Civil Judge on 5‑12‑1971 granted a preliminary decree to respondent No.1 and a final decree was passed on 25‑3‑1975. The case of the appellant was that the sale deed D.W.2/1 was executed by Miss Ashbi, the original owner of the disputed property. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. These orders were challenged in second appeal before the High Court. The High Court also rejected the appeal of the appellant. The case of the appellant depends on the document Exh.D.W.2/1 which according to the appellant was executed by Miss Ashbi in favour of the appellant. Miss Ashbi had denied the correctness of the document and appellant's plea was not accepted. The learned High Court observed that the document bears the stamp of Government of Occupied Kashmir but the document has not been proved and the document on the face of it does not appear to be genuine firstly for the reason that it is stated therein that the amount was being paid by the defendant to Miss Ashbi on the date of execution of the document which is an impossibility; and secondly, Miss Ashbi denied the sale of equity of redemption when she appeared before the Revenue Officer. On the basis of this document, the appellant got the mutation entered with the Revenue Officer. Miss Ashbi had herself appeared before the Revenue Officer at the time of transfer of the property to the respondent No.l but had denied the execution of the sale‑deed. All the Courts have held that the appellant had no title to the property. The title of the respondent No.l has been established. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. A.A./G‑300/S Appeal dismissed.