Niamat Bibi vs Muhammad Rafique S — 2024 MLD 1522 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.

Niamat Bibi VS Muhammad Rafique S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Claim not agitated in life time of alleged executor---Effect---Claim of the plaintiffs was that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants entered into agreement to sell with regards to the suit-property with them (plaintiffs)---Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court---Validity---Admittedly, the plaintiffs/respondents did not agitate the matter before any forum or issued any legal notice to the predecessor-in -interest of the defendants / petitioners for performance of his part of alleged agreement in his life time despite the fact that he (predecessor)remained alive for a considerable period of five years after execution of alleged (exhibited) agreement to sell, which cast doubt about the veracity and authenticity of the same---Document i.e. exhibited agreement to sell, had been maneuvered only to deprive the petitioners(defendants) of their valuable rights---Both the Courts below had misread and non-read evidence of the parties and had committed material illegalities and irregularities---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, consequently suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for specific performance stood dismissed---Revision, filed by the defendants, was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Niamat Bibi VS Muhammad Rafique S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Seeking discretionary relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1887---Proof---Claim of the plaintiffs was that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants entered into agreement to sell with regards to the suit-property with them (plaintiffs)---Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court---Validity---Both the Courts had failed to exercise vested jurisdiction as per mandate of law, which had resulted in miscarriage of justice as the plaintiffs / respondents were seeking relief under Specific Relief Act and overwhelming as well as unimpeachable evidence was required to prove their stance, but they failed because they did not produce the marginal witnesses of the alleged original agreement to sell and even did not produce any evidence as to when, at what place and in whose presence the bargain with regards to sale of the disputed property took place, which culminated into execution of alleged agreement to sell---In such circumstances, the discretionary relief of specific performance could not be extended to the respondents/plaintiffs---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, consequently suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for specific performance stood dismissed---Revision, filed by the defendants, was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Niamat Bibi VS Muhammad Rafique S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Proof---Necessary party not impleaded---Claim of the plaintiffs was that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants entered into agreement to sell with regards to the suit-property with them (plaintiffs)---Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court---Validity---Plaintiffs / respondents pleaded that the defendants / petitioners had redeemed the suit property and intended to sale out the same, but while appearing in the witness box, one of the witnesses plaintiffs during cross-examination deposed that he did not know as to when the property was redeemed and further stated that when suit was instituted the property was still mortgaged with the Bank but the plaintiffs did not implead the concerned Bank in the array of the defendants---Document i.e. exhibited agreement to sell had been maneuvered only to deprive the petitioners(defendants) of their valuable rights---Both the Courts below had misread and non-read evidence of the parties and had committed material illegalities and irregularities---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, consequently suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for specific performance stood dismissed---Revision, filed by the defendants, was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Niamat Bibi VS Muhammad Rafique arts. 17(2)(a) & 29---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance---agreement to sell, execution of---Proof---Claim of the plaintiffs was that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants entered into agreement to sell with regards to the suit-property with them(plaintiffs)---Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, which judgment was maintained by the appellate Court---Validity---Respondents/plaintiffs claimed decree for specific performance of (exhibited) agreement to sell but they (plaintiffs), in order to prove the execution of the same (agreement), had failed to produce its marginal witnesses and only produced two (such) persons in their evidence who were (actually) witnesses of alleged statement having been made overleaf (and not of alleged agreement to sell) incorporated/added after about two and half months of (date of) alleged agreement to sell---Thus, original agreement to sell had not been proved as per requirements of law as enunciated under arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahada,t1984---Document i.e. exhibited agreement to sell had been maneuvered only to deprive the petitioners (defendants) of their valuable rights---Both the Courts below had misread and non-read evidence of the parties and had committed material illegalities and irregularities---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, consequently suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for specific performance stood dismissed---Revision filed by the defendants was allowed accordingly.

Niamat Bibi vs Muhammad Rafique S — 2024 MLD 1522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD