(Testimony through lawyer) The plaintiff, instead of testifying himself, presented his lawyer for testimony. The lawyer was not involved in the transaction, nor was he a witness to any agreement or payment. The High Court declared his testimony inadmissible. Appeal dismissed. 2024 Y L R 890
 | |||||
| (Testimony through lawyer) | The plaintiff, instead of testifying himself, presented his lawyer for testimony. | The lawyer was not involved in the transaction, nor was he a witness to any agreement or payment. | The High Court declared his testimony inadmissible. Appeal dismissed. | 2024 Y L R 890 |
یہ کیس ایک معاہدہ بیع کی تکمیل سے متعلق ہے، جس میں کنز فاطمہ (اپیل کنندہ) نے دعویٰ کیا تھا کہ انہوں نے تمیز الحق (مدعا علیہ) کے ساتھ ایک معاہدہ کیا تھا جس کے تحت ایک غیر منقولہ جائیداد خریدنی تھی۔ کیس کی کہانی درج ذیل ہے:
کیس کی کہانی:
1. ابتدائی معاہدہ:
1993 میں اپیل کنندہ کنز فاطمہ اور مدعا علیہ تمیز الحق کے درمیان ایک معاہدہ بیع ہوا، جس میں جائیداد کی خریداری طے پائی۔
تاہم، اس معاہدے پر عملدرآمد نہ ہو سکا، اور بعد میں 2009 میں ایک نیا معاہدہ کیا گیا۔
2. تاخیر کی وجوہات:
1993 سے 2009 تک 17 سال کی تاخیر ہوئی۔
اپیل کنندہ نے تاخیر کی وجوہات کو معاہدے یا عدالت کے سامنے واضح طور پر پیش نہیں کیا۔
دورانِ تاخیر، جائیداد مدعا علیہ کے قبضے میں نہیں تھی اور کیسز عدالت عظمیٰ میں زیر سماعت تھے۔
3. ادائیگی کا تنازع:
اپیل کنندہ نے دعویٰ کیا کہ انہوں نے جائیداد کی قیمت نقد ادا کی تھی۔
لیکن وہ یہ ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہی کہ یہ رقم کہاں سے حاصل کی گئی، کس ذریعے سے ادا کی گئی، یا بینک اکاؤنٹس کے شواہد کیا تھے۔
4. وکیل کے ذریعے گواہی:
کنز فاطمہ نے خود گواہی دینے کے بجائے اپنے وکیل، محمد عمران ارشاد، کو گواہی کے لیے پیش کیا۔
وکیل اس لین دین میں شامل نہیں تھا، نہ ہی وہ کسی معاہدے یا ادائیگی کے گواہ تھے۔
عدالت نے ان کی گواہی کو ناقابل قبول قرار دیا۔
5. اسٹامپ پیپرز کا مسئلہ:
معاہدے کے لیے استعمال کیے گئے اسٹامپ پیپرز مشکوک تھے۔ ان پر مقصد واضح نہیں تھا اور اسٹامپ وینڈر کی تصدیق بھی موجود نہیں تھی۔
اسٹامپ وینڈر کو گواہ کے طور پر پیش نہیں کیا گیا۔
عدالتی فیصلہ:
عدالت نے کہا کہ اپیل کنندہ جائیداد کی خریداری اور معاہدے کی تکمیل سے متعلق اپنے دعوے کو ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہی۔
اس کے شواہد ناقص اور غیر تسلی بخش تھے۔
نتیجتاً، عدالت نے اپیل کو مسترد کر دیا اور مدعا علیہ کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا۔
کہانی کا خلاصہ:
کنز فاطمہ نے ایک جائیداد خریدنے کا دعویٰ کیا، لیکن وہ اس معاہدے کی تکمیل کے لیے ضروری شواہد پیش نہ کر سکیں۔ ان کی طرف سے گواہ پیش کیا گیا شخص معاہدے سے لاعلم تھا، ادائیگی کے ثبوت غیر موجود تھے، اور معاہدے کے قانونی تقاضے پورے نہیں کیے گئے تھے۔ اس بنیاد پر عدالت نے ان کے دعوے کو مسترد کر دیا۔
2024 Y L R 890
[Islamabad]
Before Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J
KANIZ FATIMA through Muhammad Imran Irshad ---Appellant
Versus
TAMIZUL HAQUE and 2 others---Respondents
R.F.A. No. 163 of 2013, decided on 20th March, 2023.
(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
----S. 54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property---Suit seeking specific performance instituted by the appellant had been dismissed---Statement of plaintiff recorded through her attorney---Attorney an alien to the transaction---Effect---Plaintiff/appellant herself filed the suit, however, she did not enter the witness box---Instead, one Mr. "M" entered the witness box on the strength of a power of attorney and recorded his statement on behalf of the appellant---Said Mr. "M" never remained associated with the transaction in dispute in relation to the property---Said witness was not a marginal witness to the agreements or the receipts---Said witness was never personally present when the deal was struck between the parties---In short, nothing deposed by him as witness was within his personal knowledge nor such acts were done by him either independently or pursuant to a power of attorney---Said witness testified the facts which were exclusively in the personal knowledge of the appellant/ plaintiff---Witness admittedly did nothing as attorney of the appellant in relation to the Property and he himself never witnessed anything during the long episode as asserted by the appellant/ plaintiff which commenced from 1993 and concluded in 2009---Said witness was an alien and stranger to the transaction, therefore, his statement was neither admissible nor could be relied upon---Plaintiff/appellant failed to make out a case for grant of the discretionary equitable relief of specific performance---Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Mst. Jameela Akhter v. Public-at-Large 2002 SCMR 1544; Muhammad Amir v. Khan Babadur and another PLD 1996 SC 267; Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmed and others 2121 SCMR 1986; Mst. Shahnaz Begum and others v. Additional District Judge and others PLD 2021 Lah. 69; Narayana Bharatigal Alias v. Ittuli amma and others AIR 1918 Madras 1103; Inayat ur Rehman and others v. Shah Jehan and others 2014 YLR 1978; Rehana Ahson and another v. Zulfiqar Mohammad 2021 CLC 901; Syed Haji Abdul Wahid and another v. Syed Sirajuddin 1998 SCMR 2296; Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar and another v. Syed Ehsan ur Rehman and others 2022 SCMR 1398; Aki Habara Electric Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Hyper Magnetic Industries (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive/ Director/Secretary PLD 2003 Kar. 420; Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Gulraj Begum 1989 SCMR 1; Shah Nawaz and another v. Nawab Khan PLD 1976 SC 767; Mst. Asma Naz v. Muhammad Younas Qureshi 2003 YLR 587; Lal Baz and another v. Gulab represented by Legal Heirs 1989 CLC 8; Mst. Rasul Bibi v. Qadar Dad and another 1991 MLD 2008 and Mulchand Hemraj v. Jairamdas Chaturbhuj and others AIR 1935 Bombay 287 ref.
(b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
----S.54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property---Suit seeking specific performance instituted by the appellant had been dismissed---Plaintiff/ appellant could not establish from record the cash payment of sale consideration---Plaintiff could not prove as to how the cash was managed, from which bank account the cash was withdrawn, the statement of such bank account or the sale of any kind of asset, the proceeds of which were paid to the defendant/owner in cash---Plaintiff/ appellant did not adduce in evidence any title documents in respect of the property that were handed over to her along with possession of the property---Plaintiff/ appellant claimed to have executed agreement to sell dated 24-05-1993 and sale agreement dated 07-09-2009 with the defendant/owner---Reasons for delay in execution of the sale agreement i.e. after 17 years from the date of initial agreement to sell, the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court and the fact that the property was not in possession of the owner in the meantime, had not been mentioned in both the agreements---Plaintiff/appellant did not advance any cogent evidence to show that she insisted for transfer of ownership of the Property---Essential elements of a valid contract i.e. free consent of the defendant/owner for execution of the agreements and payment of "consideration", remained unproved, in circumstances---Plaintiff/appellant failed to make out a case for grant of the discretionary equitable relief of specific performance---Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
(c) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
----S. 54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property---Stamp paper---Doubtful---Suit seeking specific performance instituted by the appellant had been dismissed---Mode of issuance of stamp papers for both the agreements was doubtful---Stamp papers were not properly endorsed by the stamp vendor---Purpose for which the stamp papers were issued, had not been mentioned---Stamp vendors were not produced as witness to depose in her favour by the plaintiff/ appellant--- Agreements were silent with regard to the agreed mode of payment---As per statement of defense witness, the property was in the name of respondent/ defendant/owner---Even in the absence of evidence to the contrary, in order to get a judgment as to her legal rights, the plaintiff/appellant was burdened with onus under Art. 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat , 1984, to prove on the basis of unimpeachable evidence that such right legally existed in her favour---Plaintiff/appellant failed to make out a case for grant of the discretionary equitable relief of specific performance---Appeal was without merit and was, therefore, accordingly dismissed.
Barrister Faisal Iqbal and Barrister Salman Khan for Appellant.
Amir Latif Gill, Rizwan Ahmed, Muhammad Anwar Dar, Syed Javed Akbar Shah and Abdul Razzaq, Director (EM-I), CDA for Respondents.
2024 Y L R 890
[Islamabad]
Before Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J
KANIZ FATIMA through Muhammad Imran Irshad ---Appellant
Versus
TAMIZUL HAQUE and 2 others---Respondents
R.F.A. No. 163 of 2013, decided on 20th March, 2023.
(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
----S. 54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property---Suit seeking specific performance instituted by the appellant had been dismissed---Statement of plaintiff recorded through her attorney---Attorney an alien to the transaction---Effect---Plaintiff/appellant herself filed the suit, however, she did not enter the witness box---Instead, one Mr. "M" entered the witness box on the strength of a power of attorney and recorded his statement on behalf of the appellant---Said Mr. "M" never remained associated with the transaction in dispute in relation to the property---Said witness was not a marginal witness to the agreements or the receipts---Said witness was never personally present when the deal was struck between the parties---In short, nothing deposed by him as witness was within his personal knowledge nor such acts were done by him either independently or pursuant to a power of attorney---Said witness testified the facts which were exclusively in the personal knowledge of the appellant/ plaintiff---Witness admittedly did nothing as attorney of the appellant in relation to the Property and he himself never witnessed anything during the long episode as asserted by the appellant/ plaintiff which commenced from 1993 and concluded in 2009---Said witness was an alien and stranger to the transaction, therefore, his statement was neither admissible nor could be relied upon---Plaintiff/appellant failed to make out a case for grant of the discretionary equitable relief of specific performance---Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Mst. Jameela Akhter v. Public-at-Large 2002 SCMR 1544; Muhammad Amir v. Khan Babadur and another PLD 1996 SC 267; Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmed and others 2121 SCMR 1986; Mst. Shahnaz Begum and others v. Additional District Judge and others PLD 2021 Lah. 69; Narayana Bharatigal Alias v. Ittuli amma and others AIR 1918 Madras 1103; Inayat ur Rehman and others v. Shah Jehan and others 2014 YLR 1978; Rehana Ahson and another v. Zulfiqar Mohammad 2021 CLC 901; Syed Haji Abdul Wahid and another v. Syed Sirajuddin 1998 SCMR 2296; Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar and another v. Syed Ehsan ur Rehman and others 2022 SCMR 1398; Aki Habara Electric Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Hyper Magnetic Industries (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive/ Director/Secretary PLD 2003 Kar. 420; Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Gulraj Begum 1989 SCMR 1; Shah Nawaz and another v. Nawab Khan PLD 1976 SC 767; Mst. Asma Naz v. Muhammad Younas Qureshi 2003 YLR 587; Lal Baz and another v. Gulab represented by Legal Heirs 1989 CLC 8; Mst. Rasul Bibi v. Qadar Dad and another 1991 MLD 2008 and Mulchand Hemraj v. Jairamdas Chaturbhuj and others AIR 1935 Bombay 287 ref.
(b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
----S.54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property---Suit seeking specific performance instituted by the appellant had been dismissed---Plaintiff/ appellant could not establish from record the cash payment of sale consideration---Plaintiff could not prove as to how the cash was managed, from which bank account the cash was withdrawn, the statement of such bank account or the sale of any kind of asset, the proceeds of which were paid to the defendant/owner in cash---Plaintiff/ appellant did not adduce in evidence any title documents in respect of the property that were handed over to her along with possession of the property---Plaintiff/ appellant claimed to have executed agreement to sell dated 24-05-1993 and sale agreement dated 07-09-2009 with the defendant/owner---Reasons for delay in execution of the sale agreement i.e. after 17 years from the date of initial agreement to sell, the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court and the fact that the property was not in possession of the owner in the meantime, had not been mentioned in both the agreements---Plaintiff/appellant did not advance any cogent evidence to show that she insisted for transfer of ownership of the Property---Essential elements of a valid contract i.e. free consent of the defendant/owner for execution of the agreements and payment of "consideration", remained unproved, in circumstances---Plaintiff/appellant failed to make out a case for grant of the discretionary equitable relief of specific performance---Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
(c) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
----S. 54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property---Stamp paper---Doubtful---Suit seeking specific performance instituted by the appellant had been dismissed---Mode of issuance of stamp papers for both the agreements was doubtful---Stamp papers were not properly endorsed by the stamp vendor---Purpose for which the stamp papers were issued, had not been mentioned---Stamp vendors were not produced as witness to depose in her favour by the plaintiff/ appellant--- Agreements were silent with regard to the agreed mode of payment---As per statement of defense witness, the property was in the name of respondent/ defendant/owner---Even in the absence of evidence to the contrary, in order to get a judgment as to her legal rights, the plaintiff/appellant was burdened with onus under Art. 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat , 1984, to prove on the basis of unimpeachable evidence that such right legally existed in her favour---Plaintiff/appellant failed to make out a case for grant of the discretionary equitable relief of specific performance---Appeal was without merit and was, therefore, accordingly dismissed.
Barrister Faisal Iqbal and Barrister Salman Khan for Appellant.
Amir Latif Gill, Rizwan Ahmed, Muhammad Anwar Dar, Syed Javed Akbar Shah and Abdul Razzaq, Director (EM-I), CDA for Respondents.
Comments
Post a Comment