1998 PLP 2361 (SCMR)
SULEMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZEENAT JAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2361 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah C.J., Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ |
| Parties | SULEMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZEENAT JAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2361 (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 1998 PLP 2361 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah C.J., Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2361 (SCMR) (SULEMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZEENAT JAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and ljaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 1996
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and ljaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 15‑6‑1995 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Civil Review No. 100 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that he was owner in possession of land in question and that transaction with regard to its sale in favour of defendant did not materialise for non‑payment of consideration, was dismissed by High Court was decreed by Trial Court, partially dismissed in appeal and dismissed by High Court in toto in its revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plaintiff had raised contention that his suit sh6uld not have been dismissed in toto by High Court inasmuch as burden of proof with regard to payment of sale consideration was on defendants who had made positive assertion that they had made payment in question after denial by plaintiff of such payment and in that connection evidence produced by parties had not properly been assessed by First Appellate Court and the High Court‑‑‑Plaintiff further contended that mutation was not sanctioned and possession remained with plaintiff on account of non‑payment of sale consideration‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was granted to e0mine evidence in the light of contentions raised by plaintiff.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.
Petitioner before us is plaintiff in the suit, which was filed by him for declaration and injunction to the effect that he was the owner in possession of the suit land and that the transaction with regard to its sale in favour of defendant No.1 did not materialise as the consideration was not paid, hence Mutation No.759 was liable to be cancelled. Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties as many as 15 issues were framed, from which the crucial issue is whether the defendants have paid the sale consideration to the plaintiff and the defendants are in possession of the suit property, and therefore, the mutation in dispute has rightly been entered in favour of the defendants. The trial Court after evaluation of the evidence decreed the suit, against which an appeal was filed which is allowed and in consequence, instead of declaration, the suit was decreed for Rs.40,000 as price of 'the suit land to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendants. Against the said decision, a revision application was filed in the High Court, which is allowed and in consequence the suit is dismissed in toto.
2. Before us contention is raised on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff that the suit should not have been dismissed in toto by the High Court as burden of proof with regard td the payment of sale consideration amounting to Rs.40,000 was on the defendants, who made positive assertion that they made the payment after denial by the plaintiff and in that connection evidence produced by the parties has not properly been assessed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. It is further contended that the mutation was not sanctioned and possession remained with the plaintiff as the sale consideration was not paid.
3. Leave is granted to examine the evidence in the light of the contentions mentioned above. , A.A./S-67/S Leave granted.