Sheikh MUHAMMAD MUNEER vs Mst — 2021 PLD 538 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Sheikh MUHAMMAD MUNEER VS Mst. FEEZAN S. 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Agreement to sell immoveable property---Proof---Attesting witnesses---Scope---One of the attesting witnesses to the agreement was the purported seller's husband, who was not summoned as a witness by the purported purchaser as he apprehended that said witness would deny witnessing his wife sign the agreement---Held, that merely because a witness was related to either party did not mean he/she stopped being a witness nor that he/she should not be produced/summoned as a witness---Muslims had a religious duty to come forward to testify when called upon to do so---Attesting witness remained a witness irrespective of his or her relationship to the parties to an agreement---If a witness did not agree to testify he/she could be summoned through the court. In the present case, two attesting witnesses to the agreement were not produced nor compelled to give evidence by being summoned through the court---Courts below correctly dismissed the petitioner's suit as the petitioner had failed to establish that the subject agreement had been executed by the respondent lady and/or that she had agreed to sell her house to the petitioner---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 538 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Sheikh MUHAMMAD MUNEER VS Mst. FEEZAN S. 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17(1) & 17(2)(a)---Agreement to sell immoveable property---Proof---Competence and number of witnesses---Scope---In the present case, the purported agreement to sell was with a lady (purported seller) and under the agreement a certain amount was stated to have already been paid and the remainder was to be paid in the future and she was supposed to convey and deliver possession of her house to the petitioner (purported purchaser) upon receipt of the balance payment---Subject agreement was thus in respect of 'matters pertaining to financial or future obligations' in terms of Art.17(2)(a) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and required that such an agreement to be attested 'by two men, or one man and two women, so that one may remind the other'---However, only one attesting witness was produced by the petitioner in the present case---For proving a document Art.17(1) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat stated that, 'The competence of a person to testify, and the number of witnesses required in any case shall be determined in accordance with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah'---Holy Qur'an required that the number of witnesses should be not less than two men or a man and two women (so that the one may remind the other if she forgets)---However, in the present case, only one attesting witness was produced, therefore, compliance was also not made with Art.17(1) and (2) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and with the Injunctions of Islam---When the respondent lady denied having entered into the subject agreement which the petitioner, an attesting witness and the scribe testified that she had, her solitary testimony was to be accepted because this was what the law and the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an mandated---Courts below correctly dismissed the petitioner's suit as the petitioner had failed to establish that the subject agreement had been executed by the respondent lady and/or that she had agreed to sell her house to the petitioner---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 538 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Sheikh MUHAMMAD MUNEER VS Mst. FEEZAN S. 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 79 & 80---Agreement to sell immoveable property---Proof---Attesting witnesses not traceable---Scope---Petitioner (purported purchaser) claimed that he did not produce one of the attesting witnesses to the agreement as the said witness could not be found---Held, that burden to produce or summon said witness lay upon the petitioner, which was not alleviated merely by saying he could not be found---Article 80 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provided that it must be proved that such a witness had either died or could not be found---Simply alleging that a witness could not be found did not assuage the burden to locate and produce him---Petitioner did not lead evidence either to establish said witness's death or disappearance, let alone seek permission to lead secondary evidence---Courts below correctly dismissed the petitioner's suit as the petitioner had failed to establish that the subject agreement had been executed by the respondent lady and/or that she had agreed to sell her house to the petitioner---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 538 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Sheikh MUHAMMAD MUNEER VS Mst. FEEZAN Ss. 3 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Agreement to sell immoveable property---Proof---Scribe of the agreement as an attesting witness to its execution---Permissibility---Scribe may be an attesting witness provided the agreement itself mentioned/nominated him as such---Where the scribe was not shown or described as a witness in the agreement, he could not be categorised as an attesting witness. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 538 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Sheikh MUHAMMAD MUNEER VS Mst. FEEZAN Ss. 3 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Agreement to sell immoveable property---Proof and burden of proof---Where the purported seller denied the execution of the agreement and denied agreeing to sell his/her immoveable property, the said agreement was required to be proved by the party relying on the same as mandated by Art.79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Sheikh MUHAMMAD MUNEER vs Mst — 2021 PLD 538 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PLD