PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

NOORULLAH vs GHULAM MURTAZA S — 2024 SCMR 150 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Citation
2024 SCMR 150 SUPREME-COURT
Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year
2024
Reporter
SCMR
Parties
NOORULLAH vs GHULAM MURTAZA S
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 54---C; S. 11---Q; Contract Act (IX of 1872); Contract Act

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

Judgment text as reported

NOORULLAH VS GHULAM MURTAZA S. 54---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 11---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17(2)(a) & 79---Sale transactions---Proof---Contract with a minor void---Appellants/petitioners claimed that the land in question was purchased by them from the respondents on 02.09.1986 against a sale consideration of Rs.2,45,000/- and since the respondents were reluctant to transfer the same, thus a contract of sale was executed vide the impugned mutation---Validity---Respondent while recording his statement before the trial Court had mentioned his age as 45 years, which indicated that at the time of purchase of land in the year 1986, he was fourteen years of age---Similarly, the other respondent was also a minor in 1986, therefore alleged sale of the land in question in such behalf was void in terms of section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872---Furthermore in 1986, the actual owner of the suit land was predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, but neither any documentary proof of such sale was adduced in evidence nor any witness of the sale transaction was produced during the case proceedings, thus question was as to how could the appellants/petitioners purchase the suit land from the respondents in the year 1986---Appellants/petitioners also failed to prove execution of the impugned mutation by summoning two attesting witnesses i.e. Assistant Collector and the Patwari as per Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---High Court had rightly declared that the respondents were the owners of the suit land, and that the impugned mutation and contract of sale were void---Appeal and petition were dismissed accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English