Bona Fide

2020 YLR 144 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 12Suit for specific performance of agreement to sellOriginal owner having admitted the sale agreementSubsequent purchaserBona fideProof ofRequirementsOriginal owner got recorded his statement that he had no objection if suit was decreedContention of defendant was that he was bonafide purchaser of suit propertySuit was dismissed concurrentlyValidityOriginal owner had admitted sale agreement in favour of plaintiff and he had no objection if the suit was decreed

Subsequent purchaser was bound to prove that his purchase was bona fide and that too without knowledge of sale agreement in favour of plaintiff

Subsequent purchaser by having not produced evidence nor having cross-examined the witnesses of plaintiff but relied upon the evidence of other defendants, admitted the statement of plaintiff and his witnesses in circumstances

Impugned mutation in favour of subsequent purchaser had been attested after issuance of injunctive order by the Trial Court

Plaintiff was not required to produce two witnesses to prove alleged agreement in his favour as original owner had admitted the same

Subsequent purchaser was required to produce his defence for non-suiting the plaintiff

Courts below fell in error while dismissing the suit

Subsequent purchasers were not bona fide purchasers of suit property

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were against law and without jurisdiction and same were set aside

Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

2017 MLD 547 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

ApologyBona fide

Held, it was the satisfaction of the Court about bona fide of the tendered apology.

2013 SCMR 877 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 8Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)Suit for declarationSale of immovable property by virtue of sale deedBona fideProofPurported vendee unable to show his possession over immovable propertyPayment of sale consideration not establishedEffect

Plaintiff and other co-sharers of suit property allegedly executed a general power-of-attorney in favour of the defendant to dispose of their immovable property

Defendant in exercise of said power-of-attorney sold suit property to the purported vendee by executing a sale deed

Plaintiff filed a declaratory suit challenging validity of the power-of-attorney and contended that it was never executed, therefore, defendant fraudulently sold the property to the purported vendee

Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff

Appeal filed by purported vendee against judgment of Trial Court was dismissed and revision petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed by High Court

Plea on behalf of purported vendee was that the declaratory suit filed by plaintiff against the defendant was collusive and both of them were in league throughout, and that the decree passed in the suit was obtained by fraud depriving the purported vendee from the suit property, which he had acquired as a bona fide purchaser without notice

Validity

Admittedly purported vendee was never put in possession of suit property, which he claimed to have purchased from the defendant by virtue of a sale deed

Purported vendee should have filed a separate suit for possession against the plaintiff and defendant, but he had not done the same

Purported vendee could not explain as to why he was not put in possession of suit property despite claiming to have paid the entire sale consideration

Purported vendee also failed to prove the payment of sale consideration of suit property to establish his bona fide

Findings of Trial Court and High Court were correct

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 PLD 39 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.15Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 120Constitution of Pakistan, Art.23Property rightsEjectment of tenantBona fide need of landlordBona fideProofOnus to prove

No unreasonable restriction can be placed on exercise of right of landlord which would offend fundamental rights guaranteed under. Art. 23 of the Constitution

Initial burden for landlord to prove bona fide is very light and court is required to consider that evidence adduced on behalf of landlord, which if unshaken and consistent with averments made by him in ejectment application, then the burden would shift to tenant to establish that claim of landlord is not bona fide

Real test whether premises is required for personal use is whether need is based on good faith

Such being question of fact and finding on the subject cannot be taken exception to unless it is shown that it suffers from violations of some fundamental legal principle in the matter of appreciation of evidence or 'omission of evidence or misreading of evidence.

1992 PLC 192 LABOUR-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Bona FideInference of

Question whether a particular act was bona fide or not, was question of fact which would depend upon circumstances of each case and could be gathered from facts and circumstances surrounding act complained of.

1967 PLD 153 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Bona fide-Person in need of technical advice-Not bound to seek advice of expert totally unrelated to him-Person, entering into legal transaction, making use of his own lawyer son for purpose of executing necessary. documents-Dishonesty not the "first inference".