11/30/2024

A registered sale deed shall prevail over an oral agreement unless proper evidence is produced to prove the oral agreement. 2024 C L C 1764 lhr



A registered sale deed shall prevail over an oral agreement unless proper evidence is produced to prove the oral agreement.

2024 C L C 1764 lhr



اس کیس کے اہم نکات درج ذیل ہیں:


1. سیل ڈیڈ کا تنازعہ:


مدعی نے دعویٰ کیا کہ پہلی سیل ڈیڈ زبانی معاہدے کی بنیاد پر ہوئی تھی، جو رجسٹرڈ نہیں ہوئی تھی۔ دوسری سیل ڈیڈ پٹیشنر کے حق میں رجسٹرڈ ہوئی، اور اس پر مکمل قیمت کی ادائیگی کی گئی تھی۔




2. گواہان کی عدم موجودگی:


پہلی سیل ڈیڈ کے گواہان (سٹامپ وینڈر اور ریونیو آفیسر) پیش نہیں کیے گئے، جس سے پہلی سیل ڈیڈ کے قانون کے مطابق درست ہونے کو ثابت کرنے میں ناکامی ہوئی۔




3. قانونی تقاضوں کی عدم تکمیل:


مدعی نے زبانی معاہدے کی تفصیلات اپنے دعویٰ میں بیان نہیں کیں اور نہ ہی اس کے بارے میں کوئی ٹھوس ثبوت پیش کیا۔ اس کے علاوہ، نہ تو بقیہ قیمت کی عدالت میں جمع کرائی گئی اور نہ ہی معاہدے کو پورا کرنے کی کوئی کوشش کی گئی۔




4. پٹیشنر کی حفاظت:


پٹیشنر نے اپنی سیل ڈیڈ کے مطابق مکمل قیمت ادا کی تھی اور وہ ایک بااعتماد خریدار تھا جس نے معاہدے سے متعلق کوئی اطلاع نہیں رکھی تھی۔ اس لیے قانون کے تحت اسے تحفظ دیا گیا (ٹرانسفر آف پراپرٹی ایکٹ کی دفعہ 41 اور اسپیسفک رلیف ایکٹ کی دفعہ 27(ب))۔




5. عدالت کا فیصلہ:


عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ جب دوسری سیل ڈیڈ رجسٹرڈ اور قانونی طور پر مکمل تھی، تو مدعی کا زبانی معاہدہ ثابت نہیں ہو سکا اور اسے مسترد کر دیا گیا۔


نیچے کی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو غلط قرار دیتے ہوئے پٹیشنر کے حق میں سیول ریوژن منظور کیا گیا۔





یہ کیس اس بات پر زور دیتا ہے کہ کسی بھی جائیداد کی منتقلی کے دوران قانونی تقاضے اور مناسب دستاویزات کا ہونا ضروری ہے، خاص طور پر اگر زبانی معاہدے کا دعویٰ کیا جائے۔


2024 C L C 1764

[Lahore]

Before Abid Hussain Chattha, J

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE (deceased) through L.Rs.----Petitioner

Versus

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others----Respondents

Civil Revision No.2168 of 2014, heard on 17th April, 2024.

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---

----Ss.41 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17 & 79---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.27(b), 42 & 54---Sale deed---Proof---Non-production of stamp vender and revenue officer as witnesses to prove first sale deed---Effect---Pleadings----Scope---Non-deposit of remaining sale consideration---Effect---Execution of two sale deeds by respondent No.2 being father/natural guardian of minors---First was allegedly executed in furtherance of oral sale in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff, which remained unregistered due to paucity of guardianship certificate---Second was executed in favour of petitioner (admittedly bona fide purchaser for value without notice), which was duly registered and possession was given to the petitioner---Suit for declaration with permanent injunction was instituted by respondent No.1 challenging he sale made in favour of the petitioner, in which respondent No.2 filed two written statements i.e. one in favour of respondent No.1 conceding his claim and other denying the same---Said suit was concurrently decreed---Contention of the petitioner was that no details of the oral transaction had been mentioned in his plaint and marginal witnesses of first sale deed were not produced by respondent No.1 in his evidence, therefore, requirement of law had not been fulfilled---Validity---There was a discrepancy between two written statements submitted by respondent No.2 that the first written statement was not verified on oath and the second written statement was verified and also challenged the authenticity of the first statement---Respondent No. 2 claimed that the first statement was neither signed nor authorized by him---Trial Court accepted said challenge and proceeded to frame issues and record evidence without relying on the first statement, consequently, it was inappropriate for the courts below to use the first statement as an admission against respondent No. 2's claim---Respondent No.1 did not list the particulars of oral transaction in the plaint and as such did not independently prove the oral transaction---Evidence qua oral sale transaction of respondent No. 1 was not only beyond the scope of pleadings but was also discrepant and contradictory particularly with respect to details of oral transaction and receipt of earnest money by respondent No. 2---No stamp vendor was produced to prove the procurement of stamp papers for the alleged draft sale deed---No revenue official was produced with respect to denial of registration of first sale deed---Second sale deed was executed and registered and there was no explanation to the effect that if the same could be registered why draft sale deed in favour of Respondent No. I was declined---There was no evidence that alleged witnesses of the draft sale deed were also witnesses of oral transaction---No target date was alleged with respect to the oral sale transaction---No effort was made to deposit balance sale consideration in Court which admittedly had not been paid till the decision of the suit to demonstrate the readiness and willingness on part of respondent No.1 to perform his part of the oral contract and his financial ability to discharge his obligation---Respondent No.1 could not prove oral sale transaction---Overwhelming evidence was on record, whereby, Respondent No. 2 admitted to have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner after receiving entire sale consideration, therefore, there was no occasion not to give preference to a valid and lawfully registered subsequent sale deed over an unproved oral sale transaction---Petitioner as bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice was entitled to the protection accorded to him by S.41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and S.27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877----Judgments of courts below being result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record as well as misapplication of law could not sustain---Civil Revision was allowed accordingly.

       Saddaruddin (since deceased) through LRs. v. Sultan Khan (since deceased) through LRs and others 2021 SCMR 642 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Ditta and others 2021 SCMR 1241 rel.

       S.M. Zeeshan Mirza and Inam ul Haq Buttar for Petitioners.

       Liaqat Ali Malik for Respondent No.1.

       Respondents Nos.2 to 8 Proceeded ex parte on 23rd November, 2023.

 


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:

CNSA | The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction for possession of 2,400 grams of hashish, holding that the testimony of police officers would be considered credible unless there was solid evidence of malice or enmity against them. 2024 Y L R 1000

The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction for possession of 2,400 grams of hashish, holding that the testimony of police officers would be considered credible unless there was solid evidence of malice or enmity against them.
2024 Y L R 1000



پشاور ہائی کورٹ کے اس فیصلے کے اہم نکات درج ذیل ہیں:

1. پولیس گواہی کی اہمیت:
عدالت نے کہا کہ پولیس اہلکاروں کی گواہی معتبر سمجھی جائے گی جب تک ان کے خلاف بدنیتی یا دشمنی کا کوئی ثبوت نہ ہو۔ اس طرح کے شواہد قابلِ اعتماد ہوتے ہیں۔


2. شواہد میں معمولی تضادات:
عدالت نے فیصلہ کیا کہ اگرچہ شواہد میں معمولی تضادات موجود ہیں، جیسے کہ چرس کے رنگ کے بارے میں اختلاف، یہ تضادات مقدمے کے فیصلے پر اثرانداز نہیں ہوتے اور ان کو غیر اہم قرار دیا۔


3. محفوظ تحویل اور منتقلی:
برآمد شدہ چرس کی محفوظ تحویل اور فورنزک لیب تک وقت پر منتقلی کو ثابت کیا گیا، جس سے مقدمے کی حقیقت کو مزید تقویت ملی۔


4. مقدمے کا ثابت ہونا:
عدالت نے اس بات کو واضح کیا کہ جب شواہد مضبوط ہوں اور کوئی معقول شک نہ ہو، تو ملزم پر عائد الزامات کو ثابت سمجھا جائے گا۔



یہ نکات اس کیس کے اہم ترین پہلو ہیں جن پر فیصلہ مبنی تھا۔

2024 Y L R 1000

[Peshawar]

Before Dr. Khurshid Iqbal, J

MUSA RAZA---Appellant

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 633-P of 2022, decided on 19th August, 2022.

(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019)---

----S. 9(d)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that 2400 grams charas in a sack was recovered from the possession of accused---Presence of the accused on the spot while being apprehended was not doubted in any manner whatsoever---Prosecution's contention that the flour sack in possession of the accused contained the contraband charas along with the bread crumbs was not shattered visibly and materially---Not even a suggestion was put to the complainant/ Seizing Officer that the flour sack containing the contraband charas, was not in possession of the accused, or belonged to the acquitted co-accused, or that the accused had no knowledge of it---Moreover, it was fully established that the accused was caught red handed, having the contraband charas in the flour sack that contained bread crumbs---Place of the occurrence, too, was not doubted---Place of the occurrence was a thickly populated area, but no private person was associated and only the Police Officials present there were made witnesses of the recovery---However, evidence of the Police Officials who deposed against the accused was not shattered---Evidence of the Police Officials should be scrutinized with care and caution---Thus, where in the circumstances of a case, like the one in hand, the evidence of the Police Officials was natural, consistent, and confidence inspiring, coupled with the fact that neither ill will nor enmity, was, alleged against Police officials or it was alleged but not proved, it would weigh heavily in the scale of justice---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt---Appeal in hand was accordingly dismissed.

       Haftay Khan v. The State 2013 PCr.LJ 1374; Sayyar v. The State PLD 2015 Pesh. 157 and Akhtar Zarin v. The State 2022 MLD 796 ref.

       Faisal Shahzad v. The State 2022 SCMR 905; Liaquat Ali and another v. The State 2022 SCMR 1097; Rehmat Gul v. The State 2022 PCr.LJ 10 and Muhammad Faisal v. The State 2022 YLR 1163 rel.

(b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019)---

----S. 9(d)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in evidence--- Not consequential---Prosecution case was that 2400 grams charas in sack was recovered from the possession of accused---Allegedly, there were certain anomalies in the site plan vis-à-vis the DD placed on the record---These were not material contradictions as the star witnesses of the prosecution, the complainant/Seizing Officer, the marginal witness of the recovery memo and the Investigating Officer were not successfully challenged in cross-examination---No cross-examination was made to the effect that the occurrence didn't take place on the site mentioned in the murasila, rather, the site plan was confirmed from them---Allegedly, witnesses differed over the colour of the contraband charas---One witness said it was pink; the latter said it was brown---However, this, could not be termed so substantial as to be seen nugatory of the very recovery from the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt---Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

(c) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019)---

----S. 9(d)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody and safe transmission of the contraband charas established---Prosecution case was that 2400 grams charas in sack was recovered from the possession of accused---Prosecution also proved the safe custody and safe transmission of the contraband charas as it produced both the Police Officials who received it for safe custody and entered it in the relevant Register in the police station and the one who took it to the Forensic Science Laboratory---No delay occurred in sending the contraband charas for chemical examination---Chemical report was positive which noted that necessary protocols were followed in the process---Recovery having been proved, so the burden shifted to the accused that he was innocent---Although, the accused strived to toss the plea of altercation with the Police Officials, he badly failed to substantiate it either by his evidence or even by avowing in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt---Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

       Muhammad Jehangir Khan for Appellant.

       Ma. Shakila Begum, A.A.G. for the State.

       Date of hearing: 19th August, 2022.

 

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...