2007 PLP 3147 (YLR)
SAID RASOOL and others — Petitioners Versus SHAMSHAD ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 3147 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | SAID RASOOL and others — Petitioners Versus SHAMSHAD ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 3147 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 3147 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 3147 (YLR) (SAID RASOOL and others — Petitioners Versus SHAMSHAD ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sharif Chauhan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.12
Suit. for specific performance of agreement
Contentions of plaintiffs were that defendants had agreed to sell suit land fora consideration; that entire amount was paid whereupon agreement was executed and possession of suit land was delivered to plaintiff and that defendants had refused to perform their part of contract--Plaintiffs had prayed for decree for specific performance of .agreement
Defendants in their written statement denied having entered into any agreement with plaintiffs or to have received any money from them
Delivery of possession was also denied
Trial Court and Appellate Court had concurrently dismissed the suit
None of 'the witnesses produced by the plaintiffs had stated that defendants had put their thumb-impression on alleged agreement of sale at receipt in his presence
Courts below had very correctly observed that in the first instance no evidence of execution of documents by defendants was available within the meaning of law or even, in fact; that no evidence was on record to the- effect that documents -were read over to defendants including an old .and "Parch Nasheen" lady
Concurrent findings of the courts. below could not be interfered with, in circumstances. Nemo for the Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
On 18-9-1989, the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit-land, mentioned in the plaint was owned by the respondents as detailed in para-1 thereof. They agreed to sell the suit-land to the petitioners fora consideration. of Rs.32,
000. The entire amount was paid whereupon agreement dated 24-8-1989 was executed and possession was delivered. The respondents have now refused to perform their part of contract. A decree for specific performance of agreement was prayed for. The respondents in their written statement .denied having entered into any agreement with the petitioner or to have received any money from them. Delivery of possession was also denied. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 1-6-1992. Learned ADJ., Kaloor Kot dismissed the first appeal on 22-2-1995.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the evidence on record has been misread and that the learned Courts below have wrongly applied the test prescribed for transaction entered into by illiterate :Parch Nasheen" ladies to the documents in question.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records with the assistance of the learned counsel. Copy of the agreement dated 24-8-1989 is Ex.P.1 while the receipt is Ex.P.2. The agreement purports to bear thumb-impression of the three respondents. It is attested by Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Ibrahim, Ghulam Yasin and Fateh Muhammad while the receipt purports to bear thumb-impression of Muhammad Tufail and the signatures of Shamshad Ali, .respondent and is attested by said Muhammad Amin, Ghulam Yasin and Mehboob. Muhammad Amin appeared as P.W.2 while Fateh Muhammad appeared as P.W.3. None of these two witnesses have sated that any of the respondents put B their thumb impression on the agreement Exh.P-1 or the receipt. Ex.P-2 in his presence. They simply stated hat they are the witnesses and their thumb impression are present on the documents. Similar is the case with Mehboob Ahmed son of Allah Yar, P.W.4 who is witness of Exh.P-2. P.W.S is Abtlul Jabbar, a scribe who has given a very strange statement. According to him, the documents Ex.P-1 and Exh. P-2 were written by Mumtaz Shah but arc signed and stamped by him. As to the reason for the said rather extraordinary procedure, there is no explanation. None of these documents have been entered into any register.
4. Learned Courts below have very correctly observed that in the first instance there is no evidence of' execution of the documents by the respondents within the meaning of law or even in fact and in the second there is no evidence that the documents were read over to the respondents including old and admittedly "Parda Nasheen"' lady, particularly so when P.W.2 has stated that the lady carne long after the documents have been scribed and she carne of herself to the Courts and managed to find the wituesses there. C.R. accordingly is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-71/L Revision dismissed.