Citation Name: 2023 CLC 1942 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ANJAM ALI KHAN vs MEHAR SHAH art

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

Citation Name: 2023 CLC 1942 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ANJAM ALI KHAN VS MEHAR SHAH art. 72---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1& 2---Money decree on the basis of dishonoring of cheque---Cheque issued in consequence of agreement-to-sell regarding house---Execution proceedings---auction---Objection petition---Document (dower-deed), proof of---Decree-holder (appellant) placed house-in-question for the purpose of auction for satisfaction of decree---Objection petition was moved by sons of the judgment debtor (respondents) with the contention that house-in-question was actually owned by their late mother by virtue of dower-deed and they being her legal heirs , were the owners of said house---Trial Court accepted the objection petition holding that the house-in-question was given as dower by the judgment-debtor/respondent to his wife---Validity---Firstly, the dower was in nature of debt, not a charge---Respondent/judgment-debtor, in the present case, by mentioning the house-in-question in the agreement-to-sell in fact showed the same as charge towards satisfaction of debt against him; secondly, the very transaction and for that matter the contents of dower-deed were not proved---High Court set-side the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Court ---appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 CLC 1942 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ANJAM ALI KHAN VS MEHAR SHAH O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 72---Suit for recovery of money on the basis of cheque---Execution proceedings---Auction---Objection petition---Document, proof of---Decree-holder (appellant) placed a house purportedly owned by the judgment-debtor for the purpose of auction for satisfaction of decree---Objection petition was moved by sons of the judgment debtor (respondents) with the contention that house-in-question was actually owned by their late mother by virtue of dower-deed and they being her legal heirs , were the owners of said house---Trial Court accepted the objection petition holding that the house-in-question was given as dower by the judgment-debtor/respondent to his wife---Validity---Record revealed that the house-in-question was the very property regarding which the respondent/judgment-debtor executed agreement to sell with the appellant/decree-holder and gave him post-dated cheque ; and later decree was passed on the basis of dishounoring of the said cheque---In the said agreement-to-sell, the respondent/judgment-debtor had declared that the house was free from all encumbrance including , most notably, dower, whereas, dower-deed bore a date only two years prior to execution of agreement-to-sell---Although the objectors/respondents had produced two witnesses in their evidence who asserted themselves as the marginal witnesses of dower-deed , however, they had expressed the age of the respondent/judgment-debtor as 60/70 years; which fact did not stand to reason as to why he transferred the house-in-question to his wife in lieu of dower after a long time of his marriage---Said witnesses had also admitted that all the respondents (judgment-debtor and his sons) were still living jointly in the same house---Said witnesses failed to recollect during evidence a few important facts like span of marriage, major particulars regarding dower-deed---Respondents did not produce the stamp vendor and the scribe of the dower-deed and mere copy of an extract from the register of the stamp vendor was produced and that there was over-writing/tampering on the relevant serial number, without any initial thereon---Even copy of the dower-deed did not show the number, the date of issuance and the person to whom the same was issued---Burden to prove the dower-deed was on the objectors/respondents who were required to prove that the transaction of dower had actually taken place, which burden they failed to discharge---Objectors/respondents had connived and colluded with the judgment-debtor/respondent in order to deprive the appellant/decree-holder from the fruits of the decree passed in his favour---High Court set-side the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Court---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 CLC 1942 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ANJAM ALI KHAN vs MEHAR SHAH art — 2023 CLC 1942 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLC