Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR PASHA vs DISTRICT COLLECTO

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

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR PASHA VS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, JHELUM Ss. 42 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129---Suit for declaration and injunction---Fraud---Proof---Respondent/plaintiff claimed that she had settled abroad and petitioners/defendants purchased her property fraudulently on the basis of registered power of attorney executed by her which was not meant for sale---Suit was concurrently decreed in favour of respondent/plaintiff--- Validity--- Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court below gave undue weightage to the fact that petitioners/defendants could not prove payment of sale consideration when they failed to produce officials in whose presence they claimed to have paid money--- Respondent's/plaintiff's own witness acknowledged in his affidavit that suit property was sold and consideration amount was lying with attorney---There was no element of fraud proved by plaintiff as against respondents---When plaintiff/respondent admitted execution of General Power of Attorney she could not seek to set aside sale deed registered on the basis of such Power of Attorney pleading innocence and ignorance about contents of such General Power of Attorney, which were prepared by her own witness---No relation or connivance was established between attorney and petitioners/ defendants regarding execution of General Power of Attorney in favour of attorney---It was not denied that on the strength of General Power of Attorney, suit property was sold to petitioners/ defendants---Petitioners/defendants were required to be protected as transferee of suit property for consideration duly received by attorney under General Power of Attorney on behalf of the Principal (respondent / plaintiff)---Attorney was required to prove his transaction of sale as it was he who was beneficiary of both the transactions, i.e., purported purchase from respondent/ plaintiff along with execution of General Power of Attorney and sale in favour of petitioners/defendants---Attorney also asserted and admitted both the transactions but the case was not examined by two Courts below from such angle at all---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by respondent/ plaintiff--- Revision was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR PASHA VS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, JHELUM O. VI, R. 4---Fraud, particulars of---Scope---When a plaintiff comes forward with averment regarding fraud, it must be specifically pleaded and proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR PASHA VS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, JHELUM Minor contradictions---Evidence has to be read as a whole to determine its preponderance---Minor contradictions in statements of parties or any other weakness thereof cannot be made basis to deprive them from their lawful rights accrued in their favour. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR PASHA VS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, JHELUM art. 129--- Pardahnashin lady---Shifting of onus---Scope---Burden can be shifted to beneficiaries under sale deed executed by an attorney, to prove sale transaction and payment made thereunder only if lady measures up to status of Pardahnashin lady unable to transact her worldly affairs on account of her seclusion and privacy from socio-economic conditions of the outer world.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR PASHA vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR, JHELUM Ss — 2024 YLR 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR