1995 PLP 971 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. REHMOON through Legal Heir‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 971 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. REHMOON through Legal Heir‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 971 (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 1995 PLP 971 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 971 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. REHMOON through Legal Heir‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Noor Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 14‑2‑1993 passed in Civil Rev. No. 93‑D of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for declaration and consequential relief to the effect that sale‑deed allegedly executed by the plaintiff lady was void, fraudulent, collusive and ineffective, was decreed by First Appellate Court‑‑‑Decree in question, was affirmed by the High Court on the ground that plaintiff being an illiterate lady of advanced age, there was no evidence on record to show that independent advice was available to her at the, time of alleged sale and that mere recital of payment of sale price in the sale-deed was not sufficient to hold that same was actually paid and that evidence' produced by defendant regarding payment of sale price was discrepant‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention whether appellate and revisional Courts had misread the evidence and drawn incorrect conclusion therefrom.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.‑‑‑Muhammad petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 14‑2‑1993 whereby his revision petition against the judgment of the Additional District Judge decreeing the suit of Mst. Rehmoon in appeal by reversing the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts are that Mst. Rehmoon predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was the owner of the suit land and sale‑deed dated 17‑7‑1980 allegedly executed by her in favour of Ghulam Muhammad (father of the petitioner herein) was illegal, void, fraudulent, collusive and ineffective on her rights. Permanent injunction restraining the defendant to claim ownership of the suit land was sought as consequential relief. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit vide his judgment dated 21‑5‑1991 holding that registered sale‑deed dated 17‑7‑1980 was a valid document. This judgment was challenged in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge who allowed it vide judgment dated 3‑1‑1993 and reversing the finding of the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of the respondents herein, the successors‑in‑interest of Mst. Rehmoon. A revision petition filed by the petitioner herein in the High Court also failed vide judgment dated 14‑2‑1993. Hence this petition.
3. The reasons which weighed with the learned Judge in chambers for dismissing the revision petition were that Mst. Rehmoon was an illiterate lady of advanced age and there was no evidence on the record to show that independent advice was available to her at the time of the alleged sale. It was further observed that mere recital of payment of sale price in the sale‑deed was not sufficient to hold that sale price was actually paid. The learned Judge also found that the evidence produced by the petitioner regarding payment of sale price was discrepant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Appellate and Revisional Courts have misread the evidence and drawn incorrect conclusions therefrom. After hearing the learned counsel and having gone through the evidence on the record we feel that the submissions made by the learned counsel require examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. AA./M‑2129/S??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? Leave granted.