Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1833 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Atif Khan vs Merja Din art

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 1833 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Atif Khan VS Merja Din art. 113---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 54---Suit for specific performance and perpetual injunction---Limitation---Time barred suit---Claim of the plaintiff in the suit was that his father purchased suit-land on the basis of oral agreement to sell from the defendants , which was concurrently dismissed---Validity---Petitioner / plaintiff in his plaint stated that oral agreement was executed on 31.05.1985 and his father before his death on 19.07.1989 made request to the respondent/defendant No.1 to execute sale- deed but he did not execute sale deed---Despite the fact that respondent /defendant No.1 had become owner of the suit land through decree dated 21.04.1979, the petitioner filed suit for possession through specific performance of oral agreement to sell on 04.08.2003 after 18-years, 02-months and 04-days---Under art. 113 of the Limitation act, 1908, the prescribed period of limitation for a suit of specific performance of an agreement to sell was only three years---Suit of the petitioners was barred by time by about 18 years and no explanation had been furnished in said regard---Suitor has to explain the reason for delay of each and every day, which were conspicuously missing in the present case---Thus, the suit of the plaintiff was blatantly time barred---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below---Revision filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1833 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Atif Khan VS Merja Din Ss. 12 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) , S. 115---Suit for specific performance and perpetual injunction---Concurrent findings---Revisional powers of the Court Scope---Claim of the plaintiff in the suit was that his father purchased suit-land on the basis of oral agreement to sell from the defendants , which was concurrently dismissed---Validity---Petitioner/ plaintiff had neither pointed out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below nor identified any jurisdictional defect---Concurrent findings of fact were against the petitioner which did not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below---Revision filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1833 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Atif Khan VS Merja Din Ss. 22 & 12---Suit for specific performance---Discretionary powers of the Court---Principle of equity---Scope---Under S. 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the grant of decree for specific performance comes within the sole discretionary power of the court which can refuse to grant the relief on the principle of equity even if the suitor has proved the case. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1833 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Atif Khan VS Merja Din arts. 17 & 79---Specific Relief act (I of 1877) Ss. 12 & 54---Suit for specific performance and perpetual injunction---Oral---agreement-to-sell---Proof---Two witnesses, non-production of---Effect---Claim of the plaintiff in the suit was that his father purchased suit-land on the basis of oral agreement to sell from the defendants , which was concurrently dismissed---Validity---as per contents of the plaint though the petitioner claimed that his father purchased the suit land who had died, but his mother and two sisters neither filed suit nor joined the petitioner as plaintiff in the appeal---Petitioner / plaintiff , regarding alleged oral agreement made by his father , did not disclose the time, place as well as the offer and acceptance of the transaction, which were mandatory ingredients for an oral sale agreement---Moreover, it was mandatory for the petitioner/plaintiff to prove the oral agreement to sell through producing the witnesses of the agreement as well as that of payment of consideration, but he did not produce one of the witnesses and even no explanation had been furnished in said regard, thus the petitioner had failed to prove the oral agreement to sell---as per arts. 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, it was the duty of the petitioner/plaintiff to prove the alleged oral agreement by producing both the witnesses but in the present case admittedly one witness of the alleged agreement to sell was not produced in evidence and even no convincing reasons had been expounded in said regard, which was a blatant non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law, thus, the petitioner / plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of the alleged agreement to sell as per law---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below---Revision filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances .

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1833 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Atif Khan vs Merja Din art — 2024 YLR 1833 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR