Citation Name: 2023 YLR 854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IFTIKHAR ALI vs RIAZ-UL-HAQ alias RIAZ

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 YLR 854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IFTIKHAR ALI VS RIAZ-UL-HAQ alias RIAZ AHMED S. 115 & O. XX, R. 5---Concurrent findings on facts---Scope---No mis-reading or non-reading of the evidence---Concurrent findings on facts by the two courts below did not need interference by High Court. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IFTIKHAR ALI VS RIAZ-UL-HAQ alias RIAZ AHMED arts. 59, 79, 17, 117 & 120---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, R. 5---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S.12---Contract act (IX of 1872), S.11---Guardians and Wards act (VIII of 1890), S.29---Execution of agreement---Onus to prove--- Signature on document---Comparison of signature/thumb mark---agreement to sell was comprised of 03 pages and only on the last page of the document, the signature of one of the respondents was affixed---When all the part of agreement to sell was not signed, it made the agreement to sell/document doubtful and that could not be rely upon in any way; unless not proved that all 03 pert were produced with the same aim/object and those were signed by the executor---No sign of any identifier was on the agreement to sell---On each pert there was no signature of the vendee, so the execution of document could not be said to be proved---Petitioners did not file any application for comparison of the signature/thumb mark presented on the agreement to sell before the Trial Court inspite of the fact that the matter remained pending there for about six years---From the very beginning from the respondent's side, it was denial that no such agreement to sell was executed by the respondents---Petitioners were the beneficiaries of the agreement to sell and they were under obligation to prove the agreement to sell---Existence of agreement to sell, did not mean that it was validly executed and a proved document---When such document which create a right or mentioned some rights or obligations and if it was denied by the other side who was being effected by said document, that person who was beneficiary of the document had to prove the document. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IFTIKHAR ALI VS RIAZ-UL-HAQ alias RIAZ AHMED S.12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by petitioners before Trial Court--- Respondents contested the suit by filing written statement---Trial Court dismissed suit of the petitioners---Petitioners filed appeal before Appellate Court---Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners---Advance consideration, proof of---Held, that Agreement to sell mentioned that advance amount was paid but there was no receipt for that when and where advance consideration was paid---Oral assertion of the petitioner's witnesses was there but that was also not consistent regarding the payment---In the plaint, there was not mentioning of the fact that agreement to sell was settled some days prior to the writing of the agreement to sell---Petitioner's witnesses consistently, mentioned that the agreement to sell was settled some days prior to the writing of agreement to sell---Even petitioner himself stated that the agreement to sell was written in the compound of the court and advance money was also paid on that day---Advance consideration amount had not been proved---No receipt was written on that date rather it was not mentioned that why the receipt was not written regarding the advance payment---Where the agreement to sell was alleged, the claiming person/plaintiff was bound to mention all the factors on the basis of which he claimed that execution of agreement to sell in the plaint and then, to prove the same with the reliable confidence inspiring evidence---Petitioners had not mentioned this factor that prior to writing of agreement to sell, any settlement between the parties was settled 02/03 days before in the house of one of the witness of petitioner---Civil revision was dismissed---Petitioners were not entitled for any discretionary relief on the ground that they had not proved the execution of the agreement to sell and the payment of the consideration amount--- Furthermore, if it was supposed that petitioners had paid amount to the respondents, even then the respondents had no lien to enter into an agreement to sell on behalf of the minors---Agreement to sell otherwise not valid and enforceable in the eye of law. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IFTIKHAR ALI VS RIAZ-UL-HAQ alias RIAZ AHMED S.29---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S.12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, R. 5---Contract act (IX of 1872), S.11---Persons entitled to sell immovable property of minor---admittedly, the property of minors could not be sold by anybody including father who was legal guardian of the minors except in some exceptional cases which have been stated in the Guardians and Wards act, 1890 that following persons were legal guardian and entitled to be guardian of the property; (i) the father; (ii) the executor appointed by the will of father's will; (iii) the father's father; (iv) the executor appointed by the will of the father's father---In the present case, father of minors was never appointed as guardian by the Court under S. 29 of the Guardians and Wards act, 1890---Father of minors had never applied for that---Furthermore; none of the circumstances were there to consider that father sold out the land to the petitioners as per their claim---In the agreement to sell, petitioners have mentioned that father of the minor would get the certificate and permission for the sale of the property and then, agreement to sell could be completed---Till the filing of suit respondents/plaintiffs had not brought on record anything that they ever gave any notice to father "M.H." for initiating the guardian certificate in order to execute the agreement to sell---Respondents themselves had also not filed any application before any Court to force "M.H." for completion of the agreement to sell---Even, the person who was appointed as guardian of the property of the minors, could not enter into the agreement to sell of the property of the minors with anyone except when it was in the benefit of the minors and that also required the permission of the Court---Petitioners act made their version doubtful that they were paying the amount to a person who was even not authorized to enter into a contract and for three years till filing of suit, they did not take any initiative to complete the said person for initiating to obtain the guardianship of the minors regarding the property. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IFTIKHAR ALI VS RIAZ-UL-HAQ alias RIAZ AHMED O. XX, R. 5---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S.12---Contract act (IX of 1872), S.11---Guardians and Wards act (VIII of 1890), S.29---Court to state its decision on each issue---Purpose of framing issues---Held, that provision of the C.P.C binds the Court to make its findings on all the issues framed but at the same time it empowers the Court that if the Court finds it sufficient that the decision/findings on one or two issues would be sufficient for the decision of the case it would not have any effect on the other decided issues, then the court may do so---Purpose of framing of issues was to bring on record the real controversies between the parties---Out of the pleadings, the Court after finding the real controversy between the parties, farmes the issues and on these issues, the evidence is invited---Thereafter, the Court, if it deems that if the decision on one or two issues in detail is sufficient to decide the fate of the proposition, the Court can do so, and for the rest of issues if framed, if those were regarding the preliminary objections of the defendant or which have been framed on the basis of pleadings and which have connection with the main issues, and the Court considers that even without discussing these issues, the matter could be settled, there is no need to give detailed discussion on such issues---In the present case, petitioners objection regarding the Trial Court judgment was not valid---Main issues had been discussed by Trial Court, while fulfilling all the requirements of law---appellate Court had given the findings on each and every issue---On those issues where the onus to prove was placed on the defendants/the petitioners, if the petitioners had not led any evidence then there was no need to discuss in detail the fate of that issue---No evidence was led by the petitioners/ defendants regarding that issue, and that issue was decided accordingly---appellant Court had also pointed out that this issue was relevant and whole of the fate of the proposition was based on the decision of that issue---Issue was decided in detail by appellate Court---If any other issue had any effect on the fate of the proposition, that would have been discussed and answered by the courts below---Trial Court mentioned that onus of the issues which were placed on the petitioners/defendants, did not produce any evidence---So there was no need to discuss those issues in detail and they were answered in negative by Trial Court---Civil revision was dismissed with no order as to costs. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IFTIKHAR ALI VS RIAZ-UL-HAQ alias RIAZ AHMED S. 11---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, R.5---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S.12---Guardians and Wards act (VIII of 1890), S.29---Person competent to contract---Minors were not competent to enter into the contract---any contract which had been shown by the minors or on behalf of the minors without any authority, would be invalid.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IFTIKHAR ALI vs RIAZ-UL-HAQ alias RIAZ AHMED S — 2023 YLR 854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR