| Case ID |
39fe595d-b567-43d0-b599-9deea22aa6ab |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Regular Second Appeal No. 34 of 1988 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 17, 1993 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court overturned the decision of the First Appellate Court, restoring the trial court's original judgment. The court held that the defendants had failed to provide evidence proving their claims of fraud regarding the agreement to sell. It was determined that the agreement had been admitted by the defendants, and the onus to prove its illegality lay with them. The court criticized the First Appellate Court for misdirecting itself and disregarding the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, which sufficiently demonstrated their entitlement to specific performance. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining proper court records and procedures, noting lapses by both the trial and appellate courts. |
| Summary |
In this case, the Lahore High Court examined the appeal of YASIN alias MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others against MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others regarding an agreement to sell land. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement, alleging that they had received earnest money but did not proceed with the sale. The defendants contended that the agreement was fraudulent and illegal but failed to substantiate these claims with evidence. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision. The High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred in its judgment, particularly in its evaluation of the burden of proof and the admissibility of the agreement. The ruling emphasized the necessity for clear evidence in claims of fraud and the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in court. Ultimately, the High Court reinstated the trial court's decision, affirming the plaintiffs' right to specific performance of the agreement. This case highlights the judicial approach to agreements and the significance of evidence in legal disputes, making it a critical reference for future cases involving contract law and property transactions. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J
|
| Lawyers |
Ch. Khurshid Ahmad,
A.G. Chaudhry
|
| Petitioners |
,
YASIN alias MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
|
| Respondents |
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE,
|
| Citations |
1994 SLD 1282,
1994 CLC 836
|
| Other Citations |
Mewa Ram v. Lal Sahai and another AIR 1927 All. 410,
Vishnu Rahmchandra and another v. Ganesh Appaji Chaudhari and others ILR 21 Bom. 325,
Kania Lai and others v. Narain Singh and others AIR 1919 Lah, 119 (2),
Umar Din v. Fazal Din and 10 others PLD 1952 Lah. 166,
Pramatha Nath Chowdhury and 17 others v. Kamir Mondal and 3 others PLD 1965 SC 434,
Wali Muhammad v. Dur Muhammad and others 1985 CLC 516,
Messrs J. Tyler & Co. v. Messrs United Bank Ltd. PLD 1982 Kar. 639,
Chandra Kunwar v. Chaudhri Narpat Singh and others ILR 29 All. 184,
MA. Khokhar v. Sh. Manzoor Ahmad and L.DA. 1988 MLD 931,
Mian Muhammad Latif etc. v. The Lahore Improvement Trust etc 1985 CLC 2960,
Qurban Hussain v. Haji Chaudhry Manzoor-ud-Hasan 1983 CLC 201,
Allah Wasaya v. Irshad Hussain and another PLD 1986 Lah, 29,
Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepari and 3 others PLD 1969 SC 617,
Mir Haji Khan and 11 others v. Mir Aijaz Ali and 2 others PLD 1981 SC 302,
Bhagwan Singh v. Ujagir Singh and others AIR 1940 Pat. 33,
Babunandan Singh and others v. Phunesh Singh and another AIR 1937 All. 105,
Faqir Muhammad etc. v. Sheikh Nasim Ahmad PLD 1979 Lah 356,
Ghulam Shabbir v. Nur Begum and others PLD 1977 SC 75,
Mansab Ali v. Hafizan and 5 others PLD 1993 Lah. 1
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
12,
118,
O.XIII, R.4,
O.XVIII, R.4
|