RIAZ AHMAD vs MOLLA BUX S — 2023 YLRN 70 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

RIAZ AHMAD VS MOLLA BUX S. 13--- Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad---Standard of proof--- Majlis--- Two independent witnesses other than the informer---Postman, production of---Suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the petitioner claiming that suit land was purchased by the respondent vide mutation for a consideration of Rs.100,000/- but exaggerated the price and shown as Rs.1,60,000/-; that the petitioner gained knowledge about the impugned transaction in the presence of witness through named informer while the petitioner was sitting in his house and the petitioner in the same Majlis pronounced his right of pre-emption being a Khata Shareek; that the petitioner had a superior right of pre-emption than the defendant who was not a Khata Shareek---Petitioner's suit was concurrently dismissed--- Validity---Petitioner remained unable to fulfil the statutory requirements pertaining to the performance of Talbs---Petitioner has consistently maintained in his examination in chief that Majlis/meeting took place in his house and that he performed Talb-e-Muwathibat inside his house---During his cross-examination, the petitioner deposed that the Talb-e-Muwathibat was performed in the courtyard of his house---Star witness of the Majlis/meeting deposed that the same took place inside the residence/ rooms of the house of the petitioner---In order to prove Talab-e-Muwathibat, petitioner had to produce two independent witnesses in addition to an informer but he could manage the production of only one independent witness besides the informer---Informer could not act as an informer and witness simultaneously---Petitioner failed to prove performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat by adducing cogent, reliable or confidence inspiring evidence---For proving Talb-e-Ishhad, the petitioner produced receipt of registered acknowledgment due but failed to produce the postman---Petitioner based his case on the admission of the respondent about how he had gained knowledge about the petitioner sending notice to him---Such admission, however, only revealed that the respondent knew the notice being sent to him but was clueless about what was contained in that notice and whether the same had ever reached him or not---Petitioner also failed to prove his allegation as to exaggerated amount of the sale deed---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

RIAZ AHMAD vs MOLLA BUX S — 2023 YLRN 70 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported