Oral sale ---Transaction with illiterate woman--- Requirements ----"Sale"---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that she had inherited the suit property and ............

 Oral sale ---Transaction with illiterate woman--- Requirements ----"Sale"---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that she had inherited the suit property and impugned oral sale mutation in favour of her husband was product of fraud and misrepresentation --- Defendant moved application for rejection of plaint which was accepted concurrently and plaint was rejected --- Validity --- Oral sale was to be proved independently irrespective of sale mutation entered in the revenue record by giving time, date, place and names of witnesses in whose presence sale was made. No date, time, place and names of witnesses of oral sale had been mentioned while filing written statement by the defendant. Defendant had failed to prove the transaction of oral sale. Plaintiff was an illiterate lady and law had protected such a lady. Defendant was bound to prove that male family member of plaintiff was present at the time of executing the alleged oral sale mutation and she was identified by a responsible person of the village. No male member of plaintiff was present at the time of executing the alleged oral sale mutation. Even name of identifier had not been mentioned in the impugned mutation. Alleged oral sale mutation was sham transaction and was product of fraud and misrepresentation---Plaintiff had clearly narrated the ingredients of fraud in her plaint--- Parawise reply of the plaint filed by the defendant was evasive which would amount to admission on his part---Defendant had played fraud with the plaintiff and after getting the suit land divorced her. Trial Court had accepted application for rejection of plaint on technicalities. Both the courts below should have independently scrutinized the oral sale mutation irrespective of other facts while accepting the application for rejection of plaint. Trial Court should have conducted an inquiry by framing issues and recording evidence. Sale of every kind was to be completed on payment of consideration to the vendor. Defendant was bound to prove the payment of consideration through convincing and independent evidence but same had not been proved---Both the courts below had committed illegality, irregularity, legal infirmity and jurisdictional defect while rendering the findings in the present case. Impugned orders were set aside and suit was decreed with cost of twenty five thousands which should be paid to the plaintiff.

Revision was allowed in circumstances.
2017 MLD 1331 Lahore
Before Ali Akbar Qureshi,J