KHUDADAD vs Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH alias S — 2022 SCMR 933 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.

KHUDADAD VS Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH alias S. INAAM HUSSAIN art. 79---attestation of a document---Scope---attesting witnesses---Fundamental and elemental condition of valid attestation of a document is that two or more witnesses signed the instrument and each of them has signed the instrument in presence of the executants---Said stringent condition mentioned in article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 is uncompromising---So long as the attesting witnesses are alive, capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of Court, no document can be used in evidence without the evidence of such attesting witnesses---Provisions of article 79 are mandatory and non-compliance therewith will render the document inadmissible in evidence---If execution of a document is specifically denied, the best course is to call the attesting witnesses to prove the execution---When the evidence brought forward by a party to prove the execution of a document is contradictory or paradoxical to the claim lodged in the suit, or is inadmissible, such evidence would have no legal sanctity or weightage. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 933 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case KHUDADAD VS Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH alias S. INAAM HUSSAIN S. 115---Revisional powers of the High Court---Scope---High Court has a narrow and limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent rulings arrived at by the courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C.---Said power has been entrusted and consigned to the High Court in order to secure effective exercise of its superintendence and visitorial powers of correction unhindered by technicalities---Such power cannot be invoked against conclusion of law or fact which does not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the court but it is confined to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have material effect on the result of the case or the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or contrary to the law---Interference for the mere fact that the appraisal of evidence may suggest another view of the matter is not possible in revisional jurisdiction, therefore, the scope of appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be mixed up---Interference in the revisional jurisdiction can be made only in the cases in which the order passed or a judgment rendered by a subordinate Court is found to be perverse or suffering from a jurisdictional error or the defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to law. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 933 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case KHUDADAD VS Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH alias S. INAAM HUSSAIN S. 44---Transfer by one co-owner---Co-sharer entering into an agreement to sell the entire immoveable property without consent of other co-sharers---Effect---Co-sharer cannot bind other co-sharers of the property and if a co-sharer enters into any deal or agreement for the entire land without the consent and authority of other co-sharers, then any such agreement would be illegal to the extent of the shares of the rest of the co-sharers. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 933 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case KHUDADAD VS Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH alias S. INAAM HUSSAIN S. 3---Limitation---Court, duty of---Court is obligated independently rather as a primary duty to advert to the question of limitation and make a decision on it, whether such question is raised by a party or not. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 933 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case KHUDADAD VS Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH alias S. INAAM HUSSAIN art. 84---Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved---Powers of the Court under article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to conduct a comparison of signatures or handwriting on documents stated. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 933 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case KHUDADAD VS Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH alias S. INAAM HUSSAIN S. 107---appellate Court, powers of---Scope---appeal is continuation of proceedings wherein entire proceedings are again opened for consideration by the appellate Court---Powers of appellate Court mentioned under section 107, C.P.C. are co-extensive with the powers and obligations conferred upon the Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 933 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case KHUDADAD VS Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH alias S. INAAM HUSSAIN First Sched., art. 113---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property, filing of---Limitation period for filing such suit explained. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 933 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case KHUDADAD VS Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH alias S. INAAM HUSSAIN S. 54---agreement to sell immoveable property---Proof---Record reflected that no independent witness was examined by the appellant/alleged vendee---One of the witnesses was brother of appellant whereas the other was stamp vendor, who deposed that agreement was written by his son---However, it was clear that the alleged agreement to sell did not bear the signatures of the stamp vendor or the person who had written the agreement to sell---agreement to sell did not bear the CNIC numbers of attesting witnesses---Further there is no endorsement of the assistant Mukhtiarkar, who was alleged to have attested the said agreement to sell for which the parties appeared before him and put their signatures in his presence---appellant also failed to examine assistant Mukhtiarkar and marginal witness as well as the person in whose presence Faisla (arbitration) was held between the parties to prove the veracity of the letters produced by the appellant in support of his case---appellant tried to prove the payment of sale consideration which he made allegedly through cheques for which he only produced some counter foils which could not be treated as evidence of payment---Neither the appellant produced any Bank statement to prove encashment of said cheques, nor called any person from Bank to verify such payments, if any, made against the alleged cheques---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by appellant was rightly dismissed---appeal was dismissed. Head NotesCase Description

KHUDADAD vs Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH alias S — 2022 SCMR 933 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR