Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1731 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Kalsoom Bibi vs Saif Ullah S

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 1731 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Kalsoom Bibi VS Saif Ullah S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Transactions relating to old , illiterate, pardanasheen (parda observing ) ladies ---Conditions and parameters , non-observance of---It was claim of the appellants/defendants that they were illiterate, rustic and village household ladies--- In respect of a transaction germane to property with a pardanasheen, village household and rustic ladies, certain parameters and conditions like such ladies be cognizant/aware of the transaction, independent advice, witnesses being their close relatives, receiving of consideration etc. are to be fulfilled in a transparent manner; and old and illiterate ladies are entitled to the same protection which is available to the Parda observing ladies under the law---However, in the present case, none of the said parameters had been met with and no such evidence, showing that the appellants (defendants /ladies) had an independent advice and were fully aware and cognizant of the nature of the transaction, was brought on record by the respondent/plaintiff ---Impugned judgments and decrees, passed by both the Courts below, being result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record were set-aside and, in consequent thereof the suit instituted by the respondent stood dismissed---Appeal was allowed accordingly . Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1731 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Kalsoom Bibi VS Saif Ullah S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell, denial of---Old, illiterate and pardanasheen (Parda observing ) lady , matter of---Evidence as a whole has to be read and considered---One of the appellants (defendants/ladies) while appearing in the witness box consistently denied the alleged fact of entering into purported agreement to sell by them (appellants) with the respondent /plaintiff as well as execution of (exhibited) receipt after receiving of earnest money and in a categorical manner stated that the (exhibited) notice was forged and fictitious---Even said appellant did not show her reluctance for comparison of thumb impressions and signatures, rather she had no objection on sending her signatures and thumb impressions for comparison, however, the respondent, after such a categorical no objection, did not move any application for sending the signatures and thumb impressions of the appellants to the Finger Print Bureau for comparison purposes, which omission went against the respondent and had the same been sent, adverse report would have been received, which would have been against the respondent/plaintiff ---Both the Courts below had used pick and choose method while recording its findings especially referring to half suggestion, which otherwise she (appellant/defendant) actually denied e.g. she not only categorically denied backing of the agreement but voluntarily stated that no agreement was executed by her---Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below being result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record, was set-aside and in consequent thereof the suit instituted by the respondent stood dismissed---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1731 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Kalsoom Bibi VS Saif Ullah S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell denied by the defendants/ladies ---Negation of averments in the plaint---Effect---Payment of earnest money of Rs.500,000/- alleged by the respondent/ plaintiff had not been proved , because the appellant /defendant as witness categorically denied the suggestion(s) put by the respondent/plaintiff---Appellant not only denied suggestion that she received Rs.500,000/- as earnest money but also denied (suggestion) that after that (alleged receiving of Rs. 5000,000/) she received Rs.1,000,000/----Respondent /plaintiff himself improved, rather negated the averments made in the plaint in said regard, because the payment of Rs.1,000,000/- subsequently was not pleaded by the respondent---Impugned judgments and decrees, being result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record, were set-aside and in consequent thereof the suit instituted by the respondent stood dismissed---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1731 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Kalsoom Bibi VS Saif Ullah S.12---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Decree of specific performance---Discretionary relief---Scope---Suit can be refused to be decreed even if the agreement has been proved as it is a discretionary relief and said discretion can be exercised on equitable terms.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1731 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Kalsoom Bibi vs Saif Ullah S — 2024 YLR 1731 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR