MUHAMMAD HANIF QURESHI vs MUHAMMAD AYUB Ss — 2024 CLC 1838 ISLAMABAD

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

MUHAMMAD HANIF QURESHI VS MUHAMMAD AYUB Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, cancellation, recovery, permanent and mandatory injunction---Official documents, presumption of---Fraud, allegation of---Proof---Claim in the suit was that exchange agreement executed between the plaintiff and original owner of the suit-plot had entitled him to be its sole owner; that defendant was merely one of the two attesting witnesses of the said agreement, who was unlawfully claiming 50% share in the suit property---Stance of the defendant was that he and plaintiff had jointly purchased the suit property---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Record revealed that the original owner of the suit -property submitted an application (having been exhibited by the respondent/defendant) before the Capital Development Authority (C.D.A.) for the transfer of the suit-property in favour of (both ) the appellant/plaintiff and respondent / defendant---Respondent/defendant also got exhibited a declaration to the C.D.A. admitting the contents of original owner's said application for the transfer of the suit property; they had also submitted bank draft for an amount in favour of the C.D.A. for the transfer of the suit property---Appellant and respondent jointly swore an affidavit undertaking to indemnify the C.D.A. against all losses and damages that might be occasioned by the transfer of the suit property in their favour---It was not disputed that the appellant /plaintiff appearedbefore the C.D.A. along with respondent / defendant for the transfer of the suit property and, vide a transfer letter, the suit property was transferred jointly to the appellant and respondent---Documentary evidence especially the "declaration of transferee" and the affidavit/undertaking were of crucial importance since these documents bearing the appellant's signatures showed that the suit property was to be jointly transferred in the names of the appellant and respondent as the purchasers of the suit- property---Appellant appeared as a witness and admitted his signatures on the said documents ; he, being an educated person, could not claim to be ignorant as to the contents of said documents---Relevant Transfer Letter (duly exhibited) could be equated with a title document ; since it was an official document, a presumption of correctness was attached to it---Heavy burden rested on the appellant to prove that the said document was obtained through fraud---All said exhibited documents (Transfer Letter, application for the transfer of allotment of the suit property submitted by original owner, the "declaration of transferee" and the affidavit/undertaking submitted jointly by the appellant and respondent), held that the process leading to the issuance of the Transfer Letter in favour of the appellant and respondent did not suffer from any illegality---Transfers of immovable properties made before the C.D.A. had to be given due sanctity and could not be interfered with unless clear fraud was proved by the party impeaching such a transfer---Claim of the appellant / plaintiff (regarding transfer of the suit property due to alleged exchange agreement) was not sufficient to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court dismissing his suit---Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD HANIF QURESHI vs MUHAMMAD AYUB Ss — 2024 CLC 1838 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC