QAMMAR ABBAS vs MUMTAZ AHMED MINHAS arts — 2022 MLD 1734 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

QAMMAR ABBAS VS MUMTAZ AHMED MINHAS arts.17 & 79---agreement to sell----Proof---Petitioner/plaintiff instituted suit for specific performance of contract against respondents before Trial Court while plaintiff/ petitioner asserted that first respondent/defendant had sold out subject property to petitioner/plaintiff but instead of performing part of contract first respondent alienated suit property to second respondent----Suit was contested by respondents with the pleas that neither alleged sale was ever offered nor consideration was received----Suit was decreed by Trial Court---appellate Court reversed the said verdict and dismissed the suit of petitioner---Held, that agreement to sell could not be treated as deed of title ,which in case of denial, being document of financial obligation and future liability was required to be proved in terms of art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984----as per contents of written statement, respondents explicitly disputed very origin of alleged agreement to sell while raising serious allegations in the sense that it was forged, fabricated and fictitious document and maneuvered by practicing fraud, thus heavy onus rested upon beneficiary/petitioner to establish its genuineness---alleged sale agreement revealed that persons 'G' & 'S' had witnessed it, but surprisingly only 'G' was examined, whereas 'S' despite availability was withheld, thus per compulsory requirement of art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, document remained unproved---Requirements under art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were mandatory and without strict compliance thereof any such document (entailing future obligation or financial liability) could not be used as evidence----Testimony of scribe of document could not be used to consider it as statement of marginal witness and when deed writer neither signed agreement to sell as attesting witness nor alleged transaction finalized before him, therefore writer's evidence lacked any importance----Sole marginal witness 'G' was not only real brother of petitioner/plaintiff, rather he did not utter a single word that either purported deal was settled or token amount was paid in his presence---No more supporting witness appeared on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff, thus the available evidence was meager, insufficient and inconsistent---Requisite document was tendered in evidence but was not proved per stern compliance of law, thus, plaintiff had to suffer---Civil Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

QAMMAR ABBAS vs MUMTAZ AHMED MINHAS arts — 2022 MLD 1734 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD