Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 656 of 1977, decided on 20th February, 1985.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑10‑1977, passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 467 of 1967).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Contract Act (I of 1872), S. 17 Fraudulent transaction‑‑Plea that vendor was insane at time of sale made by him‑‑No such proof had been brought on record inasmuch as doctor examining vendor had opined that vendor was suffering from senile dementia in 1963 while sale was made in 1962‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circum stances.

Inayatullah; Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 20th February, 1985.

.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 10‑10‑1977, dismissing their Regular Second Appeal.

2. Shamsuddin sold some agricultural land to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.3,000 and a mutation (No. 680) regarding this sale was sanctioned on 20‑6‑1982. Subsequently Mahmood Bakhsh etc. (petitioners herein) filed a suit alleging that Shamsuddin never sold the land, nor had he received any consideration and the alleged sale and mutation regarding the sale had been obtained by the respondents by fraud. The suit was contested by the respondents. After framing issues and recording evidence the learned trial Court decreed the suit.

The respondents filed an appeal which was accepted by the District Judge, Multan vide order, dated 10‑6‑1967, and the judgment of the learned trial Court was reversed and the petitioners' suit was dismissed. Against this judgment the petitioners went up to the High Court in Second Appeal (No. 467 of 1967), which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

Hence the present petition.

3. The main question in the case was as to whether or not Shamsuddin was insane at the time of the sale made by him (i.e. on 20‑6‑1962).

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned judgments we feel that the learned first appellate Court and the High Court were justified in holding that no such proof had been brought on the record inasmuch as that the doctor who examined Shamsuddin had opined that he was suffering from senile dementia in 1963, while the sale was made by him earlier, in June 1962.

We do not consider it a proper case for interference by this Court. The petition is consequently dismissed.

A.A. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.