11/25/2024

Specific performance | . Enforcement of property purchased from attorney The High Court held that the original owner did not authorize the attorney to sell the property in the power of attorney. The text of the power of attorney did not include a mention of the sale of the property, therefore the agreement is legally ineffective 2024 Y L R 910


Enforcement of property purchased from attorney
The High Court held that the original owner did not authorize the attorney to sell the property in the power of attorney. The text of the power of attorney did not include a mention of the sale of the property, therefore the agreement is legally ineffective.

2024 Y L R 910




 مدعی (محمد خلیق) کا موقف:

مدعی کا موقف تھا کہ اس نے مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 (غلام فاطمہ) کے ذریعے ایک معاہدہ فروخت کیا جس میں 10 مرلہ زمین، ایک پختہ مکان اور صحن دس لاکھ روپے میں خریدنے پر اتفاق ہوا۔ مدعی کے مطابق یہ معاہدہ اصل مالک کے وکیل (پاور آف اٹارنی ہولڈر) کے ذریعے قانونی طور پر انجام پایا اور وہ اس معاہدے کے نفاذ کا حقدار ہے۔


مدعا علیہ (غلام فاطمہ اور دیگر) کا موقف:

مدعا علیہ کا موقف تھا کہ:


1. پاور آف اٹارنی کے متن میں اصل مالک نے اپنے وکیل کو معاہدہ فروخت کرنے کا اختیار نہیں دیا تھا۔



2. زمین اور مکان جو معاہدے میں شامل تھے، ان میں اصل مالک کے پاس نہ تو مکمل ملکیت تھی اور نہ ہی قبضہ۔



3. زمین پٹواری کے ریکارڈ کے مطابق چار بیٹیوں میں برابر تقسیم ہونی تھی، لہٰذا اصل مالک کا معاہدہ فروخت اپنے قانونی حق سے تجاوز کرتا ہے۔




عدالت کا فیصلہ:


عدالت نے مدعا علیہ کے موقف کو درست قرار دیا اور درج ذیل بنیادوں پر مدعی کی اپیل مسترد کر دی:


1. پاور آف اٹارنی میں معاہدہ فروخت کرنے کا کوئی اختیار شامل نہیں تھا۔



2. اصل مالک نے اپنے حصے سے زیادہ زمین اور مکان فروخت کرنے کی کوشش کی، جو قانونی طور پر درست نہیں۔



3. معاہدے میں شامل مکان اصل مالک کے قبضے میں نہیں تھا، بلکہ مدعا علیہ کے قبضے میں تھا۔



4. زمین کی تقسیم پٹواری کی رپورٹ کے مطابق ہونی تھی، اور اس کے برعکس معاہدہ کیا گیا۔



5. اصل مالک کی طرف سے دیا گیا cognovits معاہدے کو قانونی حیثیت دینے کے لیے ناکافی تھا۔




نتیجتاً، عدالت نے مدعی کے دعوے کو غیر قانونی اور ناقابل قبول قرار دیتے ہوئے اپیل خارج کر دی۔



2024 Y L R 910

[High Court (AJ&K)]

Before Syed Shahid Bahar, J

MUHAMMAD KHALIQ---Appellant

Versus

GHULAM FATIMA and 4 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2017, decided on 19th June, 2023.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Power of attorney---Scope---Suit filed by the plaintiff regarding agreement to sell/ transfer of proprietary rights qua suit property was dismissed---Allegedly, the agreement to sell was executed by the attorney of original owner in favour of appellant---Perusal of record revealed that regarding general power of attorney the authority had not been given to general attorney for executing agreement to sell to appellant by original owner---Script of power of attorney did not disclose that she was allowed to perform agreement to sell with someone through the said general power, moreover, in the general power of attorney she was not given power to sell the house or courtyard, whereas, through agreement to sell 10 Marla piece of land along with a concrete house and courtyard were sold in lieu of rupees ten lac (1000000/-rupees)---Report of Patwari revealed that total share of land of original owner and others had 1 kanal 10 marla 2 sarsahi, which had to be divided among four daughters in equal proportions---In such like situation, original owner had made an agreement from her share---As per stance/statement of appellant, the house was stated to be in possession of respondent, hence, it could be said that original owner performed the agreement regarding the house which was not in her possession---As far as the matter of cognovits given by original owner was concerned, respondent was not entitled under law to execute agreement to sell of the land measuring 10 Marlas along with house which was above her original share---If she had given the said cognovits in favour of appellant/plaintiff even then the same had no value in the eye of law---Circumstances established that the court below had not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned judgment and decree, hence, the appeal was dismissed accordingly.

 Ch. Muhammad Ilyas for Appellant.

 Zahid ul Hassan Chaudhary for Respondent No.1.

 


For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.



  













 



 







































 


































- No comments:
Labels:

Rent receipt The High Court held that although strict rules of evidence do not apply in tenancy cases, a rent receipt produced by a lawyer, which does not meet the legal requirements, cannot be accepted as admissible evidence. 2024 C L C 1776


Rent receipt
The High Court held that although strict rules of evidence do not apply in tenancy cases, a rent receipt produced by a lawyer, which does not meet the legal requirements, cannot be accepted as admissible evidence.
2024 C L C 1776



یہ مقدمہ 2024 CLC 1776 میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے سامنے زیر سماعت تھا، جس میں دونوں فریقین کے مؤقف اور عدالت کے فیصلے کو درج ذیل نکات میں تقسیم کیا جا سکتا ہے:

پارٹیز کا مؤقف

مالک مکان (Appellants) کا مؤقف

1. کرایہ داروں نے ماہانہ کرایہ 6000 روپے ادا کرنے کا معاہدہ کیا تھا، لیکن وہ کرایہ کی ادائیگی میں کوتاہی کر رہے ہیں۔


2. کرایہ دار جنوری 2013 سے کرایہ کی ادائیگی میں ڈیفالٹ کر رہے ہیں۔


3. مکان ان کی ذاتی ضرورت کے لیے درکار ہے، اس لیے کرایہ داروں کو بے دخل کیا جائے۔



کرایہ دار (Respondents) کا مؤقف

1. ماہانہ کرایہ صرف 1200 روپے ہے، جو وہ باقاعدگی سے ادا کر رہے ہیں اور کسی قسم کا ڈیفالٹ نہیں کیا۔


2. مالک مکان کی ذاتی ضرورت کا دعویٰ محض ایک بہانہ ہے، کیونکہ وہ پہلے بھی اسی بنیاد پر دیگر کرایہ داروں کو بے دخل کر چکے ہیں اور ان کے پاس پہلے سے رہائش کے لیے مناسب جائیداد موجود ہے۔




---

عدالت کا فیصلہ

1. کرایہ کی شرح

عدالت نے کرایہ کنٹرولر کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا، جس میں کہا گیا کہ کرایہ داروں کا مؤقف درست ہے اور ماہانہ کرایہ 1200 روپے ہے۔

2. ذاتی ضرورت

عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ:

مالک مکان کی ذاتی ضرورت کا دعویٰ درست ثابت نہیں ہوا۔

یہ ثابت ہوا کہ مالک مکان پہلے بھی ذاتی ضرورت کے دعوے پر دیگر کرایہ داروں کو بے دخل کر چکے ہیں اور ان کے پاس پہلے سے مناسب رہائش موجود ہے۔

اس بنیاد پر کرایہ داروں کو بے دخل کرنے کی درخواست مسترد کر دی گئی۔


3. کرایہ کی ادائیگی میں ڈیفالٹ

عدالت نے شواہد کا جائزہ لینے کے بعد قرار دیا کہ:

کرایہ دار، جنہوں نے دعویٰ کیا تھا کہ انہوں نے کرایہ کی ادائیگی کر دی ہے، اپنی بات ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہے۔

کرایہ کنٹرولر نے کرایہ داروں کے پیش کردہ کرایہ کی رسید کو غیر مناسب طور پر قابل قبول شواہد مانا، حالانکہ وہ شواہد قانونی معیار پر پورا نہیں اترتے تھے۔

اس بنیاد پر، عدالت نے مالک مکان کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا کہ کرایہ دار ڈیفالٹ کے مرتکب ہوئے ہیں، اور کرایہ داروں کو 30 دن کے اندر مکان خالی کرنے کا حکم دیا۔



---

حتمی نتیجہ

1. کرایہ کی شرح کے معاملے میں کرایہ دار کامیاب ہوئے۔


2. ذاتی ضرورت کے معاملے میں مالک مکان ناکام رہے۔


3. کرایہ کی عدم ادائیگی (ڈیفالٹ) کے معاملے میں مالک مکان کامیاب رہے اور عدالت نے کرایہ داروں کو بے دخل کرنے کا حکم دیا۔

2024 C L C 1776

[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, J

GHULAM DASTGIR SIDDIQUI and another---Appellants

Versus

Mst. ELIZBETH and another----Respondents

F.A.O. No.49 of 2017, heard on 3rd June, 2024.

(a) Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act (XI of 1963)---

----S. 17---Eviction of tenant---Monthly rent, rate of---Divergent stances of the parties---Rent Controller rejected eviction of the tenants sought by the ejectment petitioners / landlords---Rate of monthly rent was claimed by the appellants/landlords as Rs.6000/-, which was controverted by the respondents/tenants, while submitting their written reply wherein they asserted that in fact the rate of rent was Rs.1,200/- per month and they had already paid all the due rent---Rent Controller decided issue relating to the rate of rent and held that the rate of rent was Rs.1,200/- per month---Examining the evidence produced by both the sides to said effect revealed no material whatsoever to differ with the findings of the Rent Controller on rate of monthly rent---Appeal, filed by the landlords , was disposed of.

(b) Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act (XI of 1963 )---

----S. 17---Eviction of tenant---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Scope---Rent Controller dismissed ejectment petition filed by the landlords for eviction of tenant from rented premises (house)---Validity---Record revealed that one of the appellants / landlords, while himself deposing as witness, during his cross examination, admitted that previously the appellants filed various ejectment petitions against their tenants on (the same ground) of personal bona fide need and obtained possession in terms of the eviction order---Though it is prerogative of the landlord to choose any of his property which in his estimation would meet his requirements but at the same time, ground of personal bona fide need cannot be made basis for eviction of the tenant when it is established on the record that the landlord has already got vacated other properties from his tenant(s) on the same ground in the near past---It was also established on the record that appellants / landlords had shifted their residence just before filing of ejectment petition and they did not plead that the accommodation where they were residing was insufficient for their need---Thus, the appellants failed to prove that the rented promises (house) was required for their personal bono-fide need---Appeal, filed by the landlords, was disposed of.

(c) Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act (XI of 1963)---

----S. 17---Eviction of tenant---Default in payment of rent---Onus to prove---Rent Controller dismissed ejectment petition filed by the appellants / landlords---Validity---One of the appellants / landlords ,while appearing as a witness, categorically asserted that the respondents / tenants had defaulted in payment of rent w.e.f. January, 2013---Though said assertion was refuted by the respondents / tenants in their reply but they had failed in discharging the onus---When the landlord seeks eviction of his tenant(s) on the ground of default in payment of rent, he has to only assert the factum of default supported by affidavit and the onus then would shift upon the tenant(s) to prove that he/they has/have not defaulted in payment of rent---Rent Controller founded his conclusion by wrongly relying upon evidence produced by the respondents / tenants---Thus, the appellants / landlords remained successful in proving that the respondents / tenants committed default in payment of rent---High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller ; consequently , the ejectment petition stood accepted and the respondents / tenants were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented-premises (house) to the appellants / landlord within thirty (30) days---Appeal , filed by the landlords, was allowed.

(d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Arts.70 & 89---Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act (XI of 1963),

S.17---Eviction proceedings---Qanun-e-Shahadat Order ( 10 of 1984), applicability of---Scope---Documentary evidence, relevancy / admissibility of---Receipt of monthly rent, tendering of---Scope---Receipt of rent was exhibited / brought on record through the statement of counsel of the tenants---Rent Controller , while relying on said exhibited receipt dismissed ejectment petition filed by the appellants / landlords---Validity---Record revealed that in order to rebut the stance (default in payment of rent ) of the appellants/ landlords , one of the respondents/tenants appeared as sole witness in support thereof; in addition, a rent receipt was made part of record by exhibiting the same---Adverting to the validity and authenticity of exhibited rent-receipt, it was noticed that same was brought on record through the statement of counsel and it was heavily relied by the Rent Controller, while deciding the issue against the appellants / landlords---For true import of the relevant provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 dealing with the relevancy and admissibility of the documentary evidence, though rigors of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, cannot be pressed into service with full force in the proceedings before the Rent Controller but cardinal principles regulating the procedure for recording of evidence cannot be kept aside totally­­­---Rent Controller founded his conclusion exclusively relying upon rent receipt-in-question which was not admissible at all and was only an anecdotal piece of evidence---Thus, the appellants / landlords remained successful in proving that the respondents / tenants committed default in payment of rent---High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller ; consequently , the ejectment petition stood accepted, and the respondents / tenants were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented-premises (house) to the appellants / landlord within thirty (30) days---Appeal, filed by the landlords, was allowed.

       Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others PLD 2021 SC 715; Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Misri Khan PLD 2020 SC 749 and National Command Authority through D.G. SPD, Rawalpindi and others v. Zahoor Azam and others 2024 CLC 1 ref.

       Muhammad Abdul Muqeet Sh. for Appellants.

       Sh. Usman Ullah Waleem for Respondent No.1.

       Nemo for Respondent No.2.

 


For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.



  













 



 







































 


































- No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Featured Post

Court marriage karne ka tareeka | court marriage process in Pakistan.

  What is the Court marriage meaning Court marriage typically refers to a legal union between two individuals that takes place in a co...