Specific performance suit after the death of seller through legal heirs .
 |
| Specific performance suit after the death of seller through legal heirs . |
**پاکستان کی سپریم کورٹ میں**
(اپیل کا دائرہ اختیار)
**موجودہ:**
مسٹر جسٹس عمر عطا بندیال، چیف جسٹس
مسز جسٹس عائشہ اے ملک
مسٹر جسٹس سید حسن اظہر رضوی
**سول پٹیشن نمبر 1751-L آف 2021**
[22.09.2021 کے حکم کے خلاف، جو لاہور ہائی کورٹ، لاہور نے 2020 کے سول نظرثانی نمبر 4220 میں منظور کیا تھا]
**جمشید علی شاہ**
. . . پٹیشنر
**بمقابلہ**
*ارشاد حسین شاہ اور دیگر*
. . . جواب دہندگان
**ترتیب**
**سید حسن اظہر رضوی، ج:**
1. اپیل کرنے کی اجازت کے لیے اس درخواست کے ذریعے، درخواست گزار 22.09.2021 کے حکم کو چیلنج کرتا ہے جو لاہور ہائی کورٹ، لاہور کے ایک ماہر سنگل جج نے اس کی طرف سے دائر کردہ سول نظرثانی نمبر 4220 کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے دیا تھا۔
2. اس پٹیشن کو نمٹانے کے لیے ضروری حقائق یہ ہیں کہ مدعا علیہ نمبر 1/مدعی، ارشاد حسین شاہ نے عدالت میں درخواست گزار اور مدعا علیہان نمبر 2 سے 6 کے خلاف ایک معاہدے کی مخصوص کارکردگی اور حکم امتناعی کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا۔ سول جج، دیپالپور نے دعویٰ کیا کہ درخواست گزار اور جواب دہندگان نمبر 2 سے 6 کے پیشرو، اکبر علی شاہ نے 14.11.2006 کو ایک معاہدے کے ذریعے 56 کنال اور 12 ماس کی اراضی اسے روپے میں فروخت کی۔ 15,00,000/- معاہدے میں جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 کے حق میں جائیداد کے اندراج کی شرط شامل تھی، لیکن 23.01.2007 کو اکبر علی شاہ کی موت کے بعد، درخواست گزار اور دیگر مدعا علیہان نے معاہدے پر عمل کرنے سے انکار کر دیا۔ چنانچہ جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 نے مقدمہ دائر کیا۔
3. ٹرائل کورٹ نے 31.10.2017 کو مقدمے کا جزوی فیصلہ دیا، جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 کے حق میں، اور اسے جواب دہندہ نمبر 6 سے متعلق خارج کر دیا۔ اس فیصلے کے خلاف درخواست گزار کی اپیل ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج دیپالپور نے 05.11.2019 کو خارج کر دی۔ اس کے بعد، ہائی کورٹ نے 22.09.2021 کو درخواست گزار کی سول نظرثانی کو بھی خارج کر دیا، جس کی وجہ سے موجودہ پٹیشن سامنے آئی۔
4. درخواست گزار کے وکیل کا استدلال ہے کہ جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 فروخت کے لین دین، فروخت کے معاہدے، فروخت پر غور کی ادائیگی، اور قبضے کی منتقلی کو ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہا۔ یہ دعویٰ کیا جاتا ہے کہ ہائی کورٹ کا حکم قانون اور حقائق کے منافی ہے، اور نچلی عدالتوں کی طرف سے شواہد کی درست تعریف نہیں کی گئی۔
5. دوسری طرف، جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 کا وکیل نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کا دفاع کرتا ہے، اس بات پر زور دیتا ہے کہ وہ ثبوت کی مناسب تعریف اور قانون کے مطابق ہیں۔
6. جائزہ لینے پر، یہ واضح ہوتا ہے کہ جواب دہندہ نمبر 1 نے کافی ثبوت پیش کیے، بشمول گواہ کی گواہی اور دستاویزی ثبوت، معاہدے اور فروخت کے لین دین کی تصدیق۔ ٹرائل کورٹ، اپیل کورٹ اور ہائی کورٹ نے ثبوتوں کو قائل اور قانونی تقاضوں کے مطابق پایا۔ درخواست گزار معاہدے کا مقابلہ کرنے کے لیے ثبوت کا بوجھ اتارنے میں ناکام رہا۔
7. نچلی عدالتوں کے نتائج صحیح استدلال اور مناسب ثبوت پر مبنی ہیں۔ ایسی کوئی بے ضابطگی یا غلطی نہیں ہے جو اس عدالت کی مداخلت کی ضمانت دیتا ہو۔
8. اس لیے، پٹیشن کو خارج کر دیا جاتا ہے، اور چھٹی مسترد کر دی جاتی ہے۔
**چیف جسٹس**
**جج**
**بینچ-1**
**اسلام آباد، 19 جولائی، 2023**
**رپورٹنگ کے لیے منظور شدہ**
**جج**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
e
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandia1, CJ
Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik
Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
CarR
)
Civil Petition
No. 1751-L of 202 1
[Against the order dated 22.09.2021, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore
in Civil Revision No.4220 of 2020]
Jamshed Ali Shah.
Versus
Irshad Hussain Shah and others.
. . . Petitioner(s)
. . .Respon(lent(s)
Mr. Shahid Qayyum, ASC
Mr. Liaqat Ali Malik, ASC
19 .07.2023
ORDER
Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J:- Through this petition
for leave to appeal, the petitioner has assailed the order dated
22.09.2021 passed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore
High Court, Lahore (High Court) by which Civil Revision No.4220
of 2020 filed by him was dismissed.
2.
The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of instant
Its are that Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff (Irs}lad Hussain Shah) filed a
suit for specific performance of an agreement and injunction
against the petitioner as well as Respondents No.2 to 6 in the
Court of Civil Judge, Depalpur (trial Court) on the ground that
the predecessor-in-interest
(Akbar Ali Shah) of the petitioner as
well as Respondents No.2 to 6, who was the owner of the Imld
J
5-Civil Petition No. 1751-L of 2021
-2 -
measuring 56 Kanals and 12 Maas, sold the subject land to
Respondent No. 1 olde agreement to sell dated 14.11.2006 (ExPI) for a consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-. It was agreed
between the parties that the suit property would be registered
in favour of Respondent No. 1, however, Akbar Ali Shah, the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and Respondents No.2
to 6, passed away on 23.01.2007. After his death, Respondent
No. 1 approached to the petitioner and Respondents No.2 to 6
for execution of the agreement to sell, but they declined to do
so. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific
performance and injunction. The summons were issued and
the defendants were duly served. The petitioner and
Respondent No.6, who were minors at the time of filing of the
suit, were impleaded through their mother and maternal
uncle. Written statements were filed on their behalf and
Respondent No.2 to 5 recorded their statements in favour of
Respondent No. 1 on 08.03.2010 and 05.07.2014, respectively,
whereas Respondent No.6 (Mst. Shaista Batool) got recorded her
statement in favour of Respondent No. 1 whereby she waived
her right in his favour. Out of divergent pleadings of the
parties, issues were framed by the trial Court; evidence of the
parties, either oral or documentary, was recorded. Vicie
judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017, trial Court partially
decreed the suit and dismissed the same to the extent of
Respondent No.6.
r
5-Civil Petition No.1751-L of 2021
-3
I
3. Being aggrieved J the petitioner assailed the
judgment and decree of the trial Court bY filing an appeal
before the Additional District Judge, Depalpur (Appellate Court)
3
which was dismissed with costs vide judgment and decree
dated 05. 1 1.20 19.
4. The petitioner for redressal of his grievance
approached the High Court by filing a civil revision which too
met the fate of dismissal vide impugned order dated
22.09.202 1, hence this petition.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that
Respondent No. 1 has failed to prove alleged sale transaction;
agreement to sell; payment of sale consideration and transfer
of possession thereof; that the impugned order of the High
Court is against law and facts as necessary requirements were
not proved by Respondent No.1 during the course of the trial;
that the evidence adduced by the parties has not been
appreciated in its true perspective and that the judgments and
decrees of the courts below are the outcome of gross
misreading and non-reading of the evidence on the record.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for Respondent No.1
has faithfully defended the decisions rendered by the fora
below being based on proper appreciation of evidence and as
per spirit of law.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length
and scanned the material available on the record with their
able assistance. It transpired from the record that RespondenF
5-Civil Petition No.1751-L of 2021
-4-
No. 1 claimed to have purchased the land in question from
Akbar Ali Shah through agreement to sell dated 14.11.2006
and took possession of land after payment of sale
consideration. Akbar Ali Shah has promised to get transfer the
subject land in his favour after his return from hajj .
Predecessor in interest of the petitioner and Respondents No.2
to 6 came back from hajj on 17.Of.2007 and promised
Respondent No. 1 to get sale mutation attested in his favour on
24.1.2007 however, he passed away on 23.Ol.2007.
8. Respondent No. 1 appeared as PW-1, Muhammad
Bota as PW-2 and Syed Mehboob Ijaz Shah as PW-3 (attesting
witnesses of agreement fo sell) and Farooq Ahmed as PW-4, who
was son of Ch. Muhammad Ashraf (stamp vendor and scribe of
agreement to sell) . Attesting witnesses of the agreement to sell and
stamp vendor proved the sale transaction, execution of sale
agreement, payment of sale consideration and delivery of
possession. During cross-examination of said prosecution
witnesses, no material could be extracted to shatter the
veracity of their evidence. All other legal heirs of the deceased
Akbar Ali Shah admitted the sale transaction in favour of
Respondent No. 1. Neither the petitioner nor any other legal
heir of Akbar Ali Shah has ever challenged the agreement to
sell before any forum. The onus to prove that no agreement
was executed by Akbar Ali Shah and he had not received any
amount of consideration from Respondent No.1 with regard to
the suit property was upon the petitioner which he has failed
S
5-Civil Petition No.1751-L of 2021
-5
to discharge. Respondent No. 1 has proved the agreement to
sell by plausible and cogent evidence before the trial Court.
9.
The findings of the trial Court, appellate Court as
well as High Court being based on sound and convincing
reasoning, found to be in accordance with law and we are in
complete agreement with them. All aspects of the matter,
either legal or factual, were duly considered and appreciated.
Neither any irregularity or infirmity nor any misreading and
non-reading has been found by us which could persuade us to
interfere in the concurrent findings. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has failed to make out a case for grmrt of leave.
10. For what has been discussed above, this petition
being devoid of merit is dismissed. Leave is declined.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGE
Bench-1
Islamabad, the
ly, 2023
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Rabbrrni '/
JUDGE
Comments
Post a Comment