2007 PLP 27 (MLD)
Mst. GHAFOORAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 27 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. GHAFOORAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 27 (MLD)?
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 27 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 27 (MLD) (Mst. GHAFOORAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sajid Aman Barki and Ch. Muhammad Akram Sindhu for Petitioners.
- Sh. Abdul Aziz for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115
Suit for specific performance of agreement
Plaintiffs filed the suit after 18 years of the execution of alleged agreement
Claim of plaintiffs was that predecessor-in-interest of defendants had executed an agreement to sell suit-land in favour of predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs
Defendants denied execution of alleged agreement to sell
Burden to prove execution of agreement was on plaintiffs, but they could not produce any witness to prove the same
Plaintiffs had contended that marginal witnesses to the agreement, other than one Lumberdar, had died, but plaintiffs had not made any attempt to prove attestation by witnesses, who had died
Even the Lumberdar who was alive was not produced by plaintiffs
In absence of any marginal witness and failure of plaintiffs to prove attestation of alleged agreement of sale through other evidence, plaintiffs had failed to discharge onus of proof placed on them
Suit could not have been decreed
Reason prevailing with Courts below for passing impugned decree against defendants and in favour of plaintiffs, was wholly untenable
Suit filed by plaintiffs stood dismissed in its entirety, with costs.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Mst. Azizan and Mst. Bismillah have not appeared despite service. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. In any event, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the suit of the plaintiffs to the extent of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court and the said dismissal has attained finality.
2. The facts of the case are simple. The respondents/plaintiffs are the L.Rs. of Muhammad Rashid. They claim that the predecessor-in -interest of the petitioners, namely, Abdul Majeed Khan, along with his brother Muhammad Yamin and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Mst. Azizan and Mst. Bismillah, had executed an agreement to sell (Exh. P.4), dated 2-4-1962, whereby land measuring 4 Kanals, 14 Marlas was to be conveyed by them to the aforesaid Muhammad Rashid. The agreement was denied by the defendants. The respondents filed their suit for specific performance on 18-3-1990 i.e. more than 18 years after the agreement (Exh.P.4). The reason for delaying the filing of the suit given by the plaintiffs is that an inheritance mutation in respect of Abdul Majeed Khan (predecessor-in-interest of the defendants) had not been sanctioned by them. The defence taken in the written statement was that the defendants had not executed the agreement (Exh.P-4).
3. In the above circumstances, it was for the respondents/plaintiffs to prove the execution of Exh.P.4. None of the witnesses to the agreement was produced. It was stated that the marginal witnesses to the agreement, other than Meharban Khan Lumberdar, had died. However, no attempt was made to prove the attestation by the witnesses, who had died. Even Meharban Khan, who was alive, was not produced. The reason for his omission was that Meharban Khan had become inimical to the respondents/plaintiffs on account of litigation between them. This still did not preclude the respondents/plaintiffs from having him produced as a Court witness and in the event of his failure to own his signatures, the respondents/plaintiffs could have resorted to other means for proving the same.
4. In the absence of any marginal witness and the failure of the respondents/plaintiffs to prove the attestation of Exh.P.4 through other evidence, it is clear to me that the respondents/plaintiffs have failed to discharge the onus of proof placed on them.
5. The learned Court below, as noted above, has dismissed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs against Mst. Azizan and Mst. Bismillah (respondents Nos. 3 and 4), but has decreed the suit against the petitioners. Considering that there is no evidence on record to prove execution of the agreement (Exh.P-4), it follows that the suit could not have been decreed even against the petitioners. The reason, prevailing with the learned Courts below for passing the impugned decree against the petitioners, is wholly untenable. As a consequence, the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs stands dismissed in its entirety. The petitioners shall also be entitled to their costs throughout. H.B.T./G-56/L Suit dismissed.