2004 PLP 1118 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through COLLECTOR, DISTRICT SIALKOT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1118 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through COLLECTOR, DISTRICT SIALKOT and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1118 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1118 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1118 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through COLLECTOR, DISTRICT SIALKOT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 2002.
- 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that agreement Exh. P-I was not executed by the petitioner and fraudulently by means of it he was deprived from his property. According to him neither the High Court nor the trial Court has examined the evidence produced by the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment order, dated 19-2-2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A,. No. 544 of 1996).
S. 12
Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.60
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell
Defendant alleging agreement to be fraudulent denied its execution
Trial Court and High Court concurrently found that agreement was duly executed by defendant
Contents of agreement to sell had been proved by marginal witnesses
Agreement had been duly registered with concerned Sub-Registrar
In view of such evidence, no otter opinion could be formed except that defendant had duly executed such agreement and sold his property against sale consideration paid to him at the time of its execution
Once a transaction was completed and in pursuance whereof agreement to sell was duly executed, and sale consideration was received, then holding execution of such agreement to be the result of fraudulent transaction would not be possible for the Court
No misreading or misappreciation of evidence by both Courts was found
Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave. Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Khan v. Government of Punjab, Province, Lahore PLD 1994 SC 1 and Qadir Bakhsh and 10 others v. Kh. Nazim-ud-Din Khan and 4 others 1997 SCMR 1267 fol.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CAUDHRY, J.
This petition for leave to appeal has been filed, against the judgment, dated 19th February 2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby R.F.A. filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 5 and 6 filed a suit against the petitioner, for specific performance of the contract with regard to property details whereof were mentioned in the plaint, whereas the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that agreement for sale is without consideration, based upon misrepresentation and that he is entitled to decree to Rs. 50,000 against the respondents Nos.5 and
6. Both the suits were consolidated by the learned Trial Court and vide a consolidated judgment and decree dated 31st October 1996 the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondents Nos.5 and 6 for specific performance and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. Against the said judgment decree of the trial Court petitioner preferred R.F.A. before Lahore High Court, Lahore which has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that agreement Exh. P-I was not executed by the petitioner and fraudulently by means of it he was deprived from his property. According to him neither the High Court nor the trial Court has examined the evidence produced by the petitioner.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and have also examined the impugned judgment carefully Perusal whereof indicated that the contents of the agreement Exh.P.I. were proved by the marginal witnesses i.e. Liaqat Ali and Rasheed Ahmed. Besides, the document has been duly registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar. Therefore, in pursuance of such evidence no other opinion possibly can be formed except that petitioner Bashir Ahmed duly executed the same and sold his property against a sale consideration of Rs 540,000 which was paid to him at the time of execution of the agreement. It is to be noted that once a transaction has been completed in pursuance whereof document Exh. P-I was duly executed and sale consideration was also received by the petitioner, it is not possible for a Court to hold that the execution of such document is the result of fraudulent transaction.
5. Learned High Court as well as Civil Judge, after having taken into consideration the available record concurrently concluded that Exh. P-1 was duly executed by Bashir Ahmed petitioner. As there is no misreading or non-appreciation of evidence by both the Court, therefore, following the principle laid down by this Court in the judgments C reported as Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Khan v. Government of Punjab Province, Lahore PLD 1994 SC 1 and Qadir Bakhsh and 10 others v. Kh. Nazim-ud-Din Khan and 4 others 1997 SCMR 1267, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. Thus, in view of above discussion, we see no force m this petition as such the same is dismissed and leave declined. S.A.K./M-592/S Leave refused.