Backdrop of the case was that the sale deed under litigation in hand was executed on behalf of an illiterate lady

6. The other glaring backdrop of the case was that the sale deed under litigation in hand was executed on behalf of an illiterate lady and as per judgments of the apex Court rendered in cases reported as Taleh Bibi and others Vs. Mst. Maqsooda Bibi and another (1997 SCMR 459), Mian Allah Ditta through LRs Vs. Mst. Sakina Bibi and others (2013 SCMR 868), Ghulam Farid and another Vs. Sher Rehman through LRs. (2016 SCMR 862) and Phul Peer Shah Vs. Hafeez Fatima (2016 SCMR 1225), the legal protection is to be extended to her, which is available to a pardanashin woman and in such situation, it was sine qua non for the beneficiaries to have proved that not only independent advice was available with her, but she had settled the bargain with conscious mind of transferring the property in dispute to the respondents. The Deed Writer (DW4), Identifier (DW3) and the Attesting Witness (DW2) admitted in their testimonies that either son or a relative of the lady/vendor was available, but non-signing of the document on their part raised serious question about its genuineness. The disputed transaction on behalf of lady was effected in favour of siblings of her brother. The latter was in a position to exert his pressure or had got a relation of great confidence to wield influence upon her and in such situation that was to be seen with doubt and care. The submission of Mr. Sakhawat, learned counsel that each of the DWs specifically deposed in his statement that the Scribe as well as the Registering Officer confirmed from the lady with regard to receipt of sale amount, who thereafter scribed and registered the sale deed, hence there was no further requirement for making the document and transaction understandable to her was not well founded. It was the defence of the lady that the property was never sold out, rather it was leased out, as such it was imperative upon the beneficiaries to have proved that the consideration, if any paid, was for the sale.  

Part of judgement 
 THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE 
Civil Revision
1687955.2715-14
2018 LHC 863

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search