PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

GHAZI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF S — 2023 CLC 2098 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2023 CLC 2098 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2023
Reporter
CLC
Parties
GHAZI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF S
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 54---Q; S. 17; S. 115; Registration Act (XVI of 1908); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908); Civil Procedure Code

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

Judgment text as reported

GHAZI KHAN VS MUHAMMAD YOUSAF S. 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17(1)(b)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115(1)(a) & 115(1)(b)---Suit for declaration, cancellation of agreement and permanent injunction---Concurrent findings of dismissal of suit---Powers of the High Court under revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Document (sale-agreement), execution of---Denial by the alleged executor---Burden of proof---Two marginal witnesses, non-production of--- Sale-agreement, non-registration of---Rights---Scope---Claim of the petitioner/ plaintiff was that he rented-out his allotted suit-shop to a defendant (possessor) who had connived with another defendant who (later) claimed himself as vendee by preparing forged document (Patta) allegedly issued by the concerned authority/defendant)---Validity---There was no absolute rule that the concurrent judgments of the subordinates Courts could never be interfered with by the High Court---In the present case, the findings of the Trial Court on the issues (relating to execution of sale-agreement between the parties) and of Appellate Court on the points of determination were illegal as the respondents / defendants had failed to prove execution of (un-registered) sale-agreement in their favour through cogent and trustworthy evidence as required under the relevant laws, therefore, impugned judgments were outcome of error of jurisdiction and were suffered from material illegality; as such attracted the provisions of Ss.115(1)(a) & 115(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---High Court set-aside the decrees and judgments passed by both the Courts below and decreed the suit filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, declaring that agreement to sell asserted by the respondent/defendants was forged one---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLC

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English