Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1329 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. ZAINAB (DECEASED) vs WAHID BUKHSH

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 MLD 1329 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. ZAINAB (DECEASED) VS WAHID BUKHSH S. 9---Jurisdiction---Lower appellate Court observed the agreement to sell to be a proved document and connected the same with the proceedings of the revenue department---Scope---High Court held that proceedings of revenue hierarchy could be considered only to the extent of the jurisdiction of the concerned revenue court and that the proceedings were for the specific purpose so the same could only be considered for that specific purpose. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1329 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. ZAINAB (DECEASED) VS WAHID BUKHSH arts. 79, 100 & 129(g)--- Original document not produced---Secondary evidence not properly produced---Thirty years old document losing its sanctity---Suit property was state land which was originally allotted to "Y" and "a" from whom the predecessor in interest of appellants/defendants ("G") purchased the same through agreement to sell---"G" entered into agreement to sell with the respondents/plaintiffs with the condition that the respondents would pay the rest of the installments due regarding the allotment of the land ("G" had paid only 2 instalment)---Respondents/plaintiffs alleged that they paid all the instalments due to "Y" and "a" and that they were owners in possession of the land since then without any interruption---"G" filed an ejectment application before assistant Commissioner/ Revenue Court which had dismissed the same declaring that "G" could not prove himself as the owner of the land---"G" filed suit (earlier suit) for specific performance against "Y" and "a" which was decreed by Trial Court---Respondents filed the present suit against "G" which was dismissed by Trial Court---appellate Court reversed the judgment of Trial Court---appellants/defendants contended that the respondents filed the suit on the basis of agreement to sell, which was neither executed by "G" nor had any agreement to sell settled between the parties; that on the said date "G" had no status in the property; that he purchased half share from "Y"; that document exhibited was a premature agreement to sell and was a fictitious/forged document; that original document had not been produced and the copy produced before the court was inadmissible to be considered in evidence; that no witness of the said document had been produced before the court; that witnesses who merely certified that the copy was issued with a signature, could be said to be the witness of that document; that claim on the basis of revenue proceedings could not be considered to ascertain the ownership of any party; that the proceedings of the revenue department could not be taken into consideration for the confirmation of any title of the property; that respondents had knowledge of the litigation between "G" and "Y" and "a" which was decreed in favour of "G" and on the basis of the same, the mutation was sanctioned; that respondents neither tried to be the party in the said litigation nor did they file any application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.; that respondents' claim was based on alleged document of year 1964, hence the suit was time barred---Validity---Original document, i.e. alleged agreement to sell had not been produced before the court and it was mentioned in the evidence that whereabouts of that document were not known---Said document was never produced before any legal forum---One of the respondents was 05/06 years of age at the time of completion of that document and his brother being another respondent was 01 year younger than him---Record showed that father of respondents died---Existence of the alleged agreement to sell came into their knowledge---Certified copy issued from the revenue department was produced in the Court where signatures of "G" were missing---No allotment letter or any other title document relating to the property was produced---alleged agreement to sell was not a valid contract, as the status of "G" was not settled in any way in the revenue record relating to the land---Mere agreement to sell would not create any title---at the time of writing of alleged agreement, "G" was not legally in a position to enter into an agreement for the same property---Photocopy/secondary evidence was not produced in the court as per law---Nothing was stated by the respondents/plaintiffs regarding the fact that whether they were alive or not---When no procedure was adopted for the production of the document as secondary evidence, no efforts were made for proving of the same, such document would lose its sanctity even being a 30 years old document---Statement of witness regarding contents of the said document was not reliable as his information was based on hearsay evidence---In financial disputes, the evidence of blood/close relative/dependent was not admissible, unless proved that they were present at the place and there was no other independent witness available---Revenue hierarchy had no jurisdiction to decide the matter of ownership---Proceedings of Revenue authorities even could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the ownership of the parties---If time was not essence of the contract which would be ascertained from the terms of the agreement and from the other attending circumstances---Respondents could file application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. to get the decree in favour of "G" set-aside when they came to know about the decree, but they did not---appeal was allowed with costs throughout. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1329 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. ZAINAB (DECEASED) VS WAHID BUKHSH art. 100---Presumption of truth---Duty of the Court---Procedure---Thirty years old document that was presumed to be true, but merely on the basis of such presumption, Court could not decide the fate of fixing of future liability---When there were rules, court had to observe all those rules, if otherwise, the court would explain why those rules were overlooked.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1329 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. ZAINAB (DECEASED) vs WAHID BUKHSH S — 2023 MLD 1329 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD