MUHAMMAD HANIF QURESHI vs MUHAMMAD AYUB art — 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 art. 129(g)---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, cancellation, recovery, permanent and mandatory injunction---Title documents, challenging of---Best evidence, withholding of---adverse presumption claim of the plaintiff 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---Since the appellant / plaintiff asserted that the suit property was only purchased by him from the original owner and that respondent had not paid any sale consideration for the suit property, the person whose testimony would have been most crucial in determining whether the suit property was purchased jointly by the appellant and respondent or singly by the appellant would have been the original owner--- If there was any truth to the appellant's assertion that the suit-property had only been purchased by him, he would have lost no time in producing original owner as a witness so that he could give testimony in consonance with his( appellant's) case; which, the appellant did not do---appellant's failure to produce the original owner would give rise to a presumption under art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that the evidence which could be but was not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person withholding it---Even the appellant failed to produce the second attesting witness of the said agreement in order to prove that it was executed in accordance with the law---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 art — 2024 CLC 1838 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC