P L D 1993 Supreme Court 69 (PLP)
Mst. REHMAT BIBI ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus SHAHZAD WAHEED and another ‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1993 Supreme Court 69 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | Mst. REHMAT BIBI ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus SHAHZAD WAHEED and another ‑‑‑ Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1993 Supreme Court 69 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1993 Supreme Court 69 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1993 Supreme Court 69 (PLP) (Mst. REHMAT BIBI ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus SHAHZAD WAHEED and another ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A.K. Dogar, Advocate instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafry Advocate on‑Record for Appellant.
- Shahid Hussain Qadri, Advocate instructed by M. Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th October, 1992
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 31‑10‑1988 of the Lahore High Court passed in C.R. No.1512‑D of 1988). (a) Pardanashin lady ‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (19t), Art. 185(3) ‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to plaintiff to examine whether she being illiterate. Pardanashin lady, transaction in question, was a mortgage or sale. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑ ‑‑‑‑ Ss.54 & 58 ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 ‑‑‑ Concurrent finding of fact ‑‑‑ Interference ‑‑‑ Plaintiff's case was that she intended to mortgage property in question, but same was shown as sold vide registered deed‑‑ Record showed that document in question, was executed at plaintiff's house, it was thumb‑marked by her and witnessed by her son‑‑‑Plaintiff at the time of registration had appeared and accepted earlier receipt of specified amount and balance amount was paid before Registrar ‑‑‑ Vendee did not stand in any fiduciary relationship with plaintiff and she had executed sale deed in her house in presence of her son‑‑‑No justification to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by three Courts below ‑‑‑ Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDULSHAKURUL I LAM, J.‑‑‑This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances.
1. Relevant facts are that the appellant filed a suit for a declaration on 14‑4‑1983 that a portion of the house No.S.XLVI‑6‑S‑2/A(39)/40) situate at Gopal Nagar, Gulberg Scheme No.3, Lahore was intended to be mortgaged by her in favour of the respondent No.1 which was shown as sold vide registered deed dated 9‑11‑1968 fraudulently. After recording of the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court/Civil Judge, Lahore dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16‑10‑1985. The appellant's first appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 12‑7‑1988 and her revision petition by a learned Judge of the High Court on 31‑8‑1988. Leave A to appeal was granted to the appellant to examine whether she being illiterate pardanashin lady, the transaction was a mortgage or sale.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant had intended to mortgage the house and the registered sale‑deed was fraudulently got registered. The lady had had no independent advice.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that all the three Courts have found that the appellant had sold the house and sale‑deed wag validly executed and registered.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record we find that the document was executed at the appellant's house. It was thumb‑marked by her and witnessed by her son Rehmatullah P.W.3. At the time of the registration, the appellant had appeared and accepted earlier receipt of Rs. 2,000 and the balance of Rs.3,750 was paid to her before the Registrar. It was thumb‑marked by her. The vendee did not stand in any fiduciary relationship with her and the appellant had executed the deed in her house in the presence of her son. In the circumstances we do not rind any justification to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the three Courts below. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. AA./R~205/S Appeal dismissed.