Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
K.L.R. 2005 S.C.101

Hassan Din vs Sanaullah

CitationK.L.R. 2005 S.C.101
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 1284/L of 2001
Date2005-04-19
Judge(s)Falak Sher, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Tasaddaq Hussain Jillani
ResultLeave Refused

ORDER

It is admitted even before us that the original owner of the suit land namely Noor Hussain had sold the land in question to Sana Ullah, respondent through a registered sale-deed dated 28.11.1970, Exh.

P-2. The case of Hassan Din, petitioner however is that in the year 1973, the said Sana Ullah had sold the said land back to the above- mentioned original owner namely Noor Hussain and it was thereafter that the said Noor Hussain had sold the same to him through a registered sale-deed dated 1.10.1973. This being so, the crucial question on which the fate of this case hinges was the factum of re-sale of the suit land by Sana Ullah, respondent to the original owner namely Noor Hussain. Reliance in this connection was placed on Exh. P- 2/1 which was an endorsement on the back of the above- mentioned sale-deed dated 28.11.1970 and through which endorsement Sana Ullah, respondent was alleged to have cancelled the above mentioned sale-deed dated 28.11.1970 executed by Noor Hussain in his favour and whereby he had conveyed the suit land back to the said Noor Hussain.

2. For detailed reasons recorded by the learned Judge in Chamber, it had been found by the Hon'ble High Court that the said alleged endorsement was no conveyance in the eyes of law for more than one reasons and further that the opinion of the learned Trial Judge that the alleged signatures of Sana Ullah, respondent on the said endorsement dated 12.4.1973 were similar to the admitted signatures of the said shah Ullah was not correct observation because as a result of the comparison of the said signatures of the said respondent, the learned Single Judge had reached a different conclusion.

3. The learned ASC for the petitioner who has been heard at some length, could not point out any factual or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment nor could it be shown to us that the said impugned judgment was based on misreading^of any evidence or that it was the result of nonreading of any material available on record.

4. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed . ,

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch