1995SCMR171 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SALIM and 6 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR171 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALIM and 6 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR171 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR171 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR171 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SALIM and 6 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Kh. Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 1994.
- We have heard Qazi Muhammad Salim, Senior Advocate, for the petitioners, and have perused the record of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22‑9‑1993 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in C.R. No. 286/90). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Agreement to transfer shop in question for a specific amount of consideration was executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff‑‑‑Trial Court on basis of such agreement granted decree for specific performance of. agreement in question‑‑‑Appellate Court and High Court in revision, considering agreement in question to be agreement of mortgage, set aside Trial Court's decree‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Agreement in question, apparently was not scribed by deed‑writer‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether evidence regarding such agreement being an agreement to sell had been produced which stood unrebutted as neither the executant of deed nor her husband volunteered to depose on oath that deed in question, was an agreement of mortgage nor they subjected themselves to cross‑examination.
Judgment & Decree
WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Salim and others, heirs of Abdul Majeed deceased/plaintiff, call in question the judgment dated 22‑9‑1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, whereby Civil Revision No. 286/90 filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the appellate Court dated 27‑5‑1990 accepting the appeal of the respondents and by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court dismissing their suit for specific performance of the agreement, was dismissed. We have heard Qazi Muhammad Salim, Senior Advocate, for the petitioners, and have perused the record of the case. The trial Court vide judgment dated 7‑11‑1989 while giving its finding on issues Nos. 6 and 7 came to the conclusion that through the impugned agreement deed dated 2‑10‑1961 Exh. P.W.1/1 the deceased defendant No. 1 had agreed to transfer the suit shop to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3,542 and passed decree for specific performance of the agreement deed in favour of Abdul Majeed, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners against Mst. Sadiqa Begum predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents. However, the learned Appellate Court and the High Court termed it as an agreement of mortgage. The learned counsel for the petitioners read out the impugned agreement and stressed that the mortgage of the shop had taken effect orally but according to the terms of the deed it had been agreed that on the acquisition of the title deed she will execute registered deed regarding the transfer of title and will incur the expenses herself and further that if any defect occurred in the title of the executant she will refund the amount of Rs.3,
542. The deed apparently is not scribed by a regular deed‑writer. He further contended that evidence regarding its being an agreement to sell has been produced which stood unrebutted as neither the executant of the deed nor her husband volunteered to depose on oath that the deed was an agreement of mortgage and subject themselves to cross examination. Leave is granted to consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Stay order already granted shall continue. A.A./2064/S Leave granted.