Muhammad Sharif vs Rana Muhammad Sharif S — 2024 MLD 1176 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.

Muhammad Sharif VS Rana Muhammad Sharif S. 115 --- Concurrent findings---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Findings of lower Courts on question of facts and law based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence are not liable to be reviewed or substituted by the High Court ---Concurrent findings of the fact cannot be disturbed unless Courts below while recording findings of the facts have either misread the evidence or have ignored any material piece of evidence or they are perverse and reflect some jurisdictional error. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1176 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Sharif VS Rana Muhammad Sharif arts.17, 79, 80 &129(g)---Specific Relief act ( I of 1877) , S. 12 ---Suit for specific performance---agreement to sell, execution of---Proof---Marginal witness, non-producing of---Effect---Withholding of evidence---Suit filed by the plaintiff was concurrently dismissed---Validity---Petitioner/plaintiff though got exhibited agreement-to-sell but failed to prove its valid execution --- It is the duty of the beneficiary of the agreement to prove its genuineness by producing its marginal witnesses---Under arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e- Shahadat 1984, a plaintiff is duty bound to prove the genuineness of the document through cogent, confidence inspiring and independent evidence---Where the law requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that way and not otherwise---agreement in question was attested by two marginal witnesses; though the petitioner produced only one of them but later failed to produce him for cross examination, therefore, earlier statement/evidence of said marginal witness was of no support to the petitioner and the said statement could not be read against respondent---although it was apprised to the Trial Court that said witness had died but the petitioner failed to produce the death certificate of said witness till the final decision of the case---Petitioner also failed to produce the second marginal witness---Petitioner while recording his own statement deposed that said (second) witness had died while his counsel got exhibited /produced photo copy of his death certificate but the Courts below did not accept the said photocopy of death certificate as a piece of evidence---Simple oral assertion was not enough to prove the factum of death of both the marginal witnesses of agreement to sell ---article 80 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, provides the procedure how to prove document when no attesting witness is found---It was obligatory upon the petitioner to prove the fact that his witnesses had died or could not be traced out---Petitioner had a way to prove the factum of death by leading secondary evidence---Best evidence was withheld without showing any justification, thus inference of art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, had to be drawn against him---Petitioner failed to produce attesting witnesses or to comply with the requirements of art. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Provisions of art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 are mandatory and non- compliance thereof renders agreement as inadmissible in evidence---Petitioner had failed to prove genuineness of a valid agreement to sell in his favour, therefore, the Courts below had rightly concluded and dismissed the suit of the petitioner concurrently---Civil revision ,filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Sharif vs Rana Muhammad Sharif S — 2024 MLD 1176 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD