Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2113 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Iqbal vs Ghulam Mustafa 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 2113 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Iqbal VS Ghulam Mustafa art. 79---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 54, agreement to sell , execution of---Proof---Plaintiff claimed possession of the suit-land on the basis of agreement to sell---Suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was concurrently dismissed---Validity---Petitioner/ plaintiff got examined only one of the two marginal witnesses and did not examine the other / second marginal witness---What had made said aspect crucial and fatal was the fact that he (petitioner) did not produce or examine the scribe of the agreement to sell either---a person who had reduced such agreement into writing was a material witness and his presence and testimony was more relevant in view of the fact that only one marginal witness had been produced and in the absence of the second marginal witness the evidence of the scribe would have gained importance and helped the petitioner in establishing and proving his case---Most of all, the stamp-vendor who issued the stamp paper on which the alleged agreement to sell was reduced into writing was, likewise, not produced or examined either---Hence, evidence of only one marginal witness was not sufficient to prove execution of the agreement to sell in issue---While the respondent/ defendant out rightly denied the agreement-in-question , the petitioner / plaintiff failed to prove his case in terms of art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the concurrent judgments passed by both the Courts below---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2113 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Iqbal VS Ghulam Mustafa Ss. 12 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction---Agreement to sell---Proof---Plaintiff claimed possession of the suit-land on the basis of agreement to sell---Suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was concurrently dismissed---Contention of the petitioner / plaintiff was that in the presence of clear admission on the part of the respondent/defendant in his written statement about the agreement to sell there was no need for him to prove the agreement to sell in question---Validity---In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner, relevant paragraph of preliminary objections in the written statement filed by the respondent were analyzed / compared with relevant paragraph of facts in the written statement---From a perusal of said parts of the written statement it was evident that nowhere, not even once, had the respondent admitted any agreement to sell between the parties---In fact, the respondent had unequivocally stated that the suit was based on malice; that the respondent had never entered into any agreement to sell with the petitioner, rather the respondent had only leased out the land in question to the petitioner and that by virtue of fraud and misrepresentation the Patta Nama for the lease in question had been sought to be converted fraudulently into an agreement to sell; that the suit merited to be dismissed---Likewise, in reply to relevant paragraph on facts, the respondent had clearly averred that the suit in question was based on a figment of imagination; that the respondent never entered into any agreement to sell or contract for sale with the petitioner and had never received any earnest money and that the Patta Nama in respect of lease was being touted as an agreement to sell ---Thus, argument raised by the petitioner (about the agreement to sell being admitted by the respondent)was misplaced and misconceived---Not even once had the respondent admitted the agreement to sell and hence it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove the agreement in accordance with law because no admission was involved in the matter.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2113 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Iqbal vs Ghulam Mustafa art — 2024 YLR 2113 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR