Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Claim not agitated in life time of alleged executor---Effect---- Necessary party not impleaded---Claim of the plaintiffs was that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants entered into.........

  Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Claim not agitated in life time of alleged executor---Effect---Claim of the plaintiffs was that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants entered into agreement to sell with regards to the suit-property with them (plaintiffs)--Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court---Validity- Admittedly, the plaintiffs/respondents did not agitate the matter before any forum or issued any legal notice to the predecessor-in -interest of the defendants / petitioners for performance of his part of alleged agreement in his life time despite the fact that he (predecessor) remained alive for a considerable period of five years after execution of alleged (exhibited) agreement to sell, which cast doubt about the veracity and authenticity of the same---Document l.e. exhibited agreement to sell, had been maneuvered only to deprive the petitioners(defendants) of their valuable rights---Both the Courts below had misread and non-read evidence of the parties and had committed material illegalities and irregularities-

Civil Revision 1148-13
NIAMAT BIBI VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
2024 MLD 1522

Agreement to sell---Proof--- Necessary party not impleaded---Claim of the plaintiffs was that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants entered into agreement to sell with regards to the suit-property with them (plaintiffs)---Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court---Validity---Plaintiffs / respondents pleaded that the defendants / petitioners had redeemed the suit property and intended to sale out the same, but while appearing in the witness box, one of the witnesses plaintiffs during cross-examination deposed that he did not know as to when the property was redeemed and further stated that when suit was instituted the property was still mortgaged with the Bank but the plaintiffs did not implead the concerned Bank in the array of the defendants---Document i.e. exhibited agreement to sell had been maneuvered only to deprive the petitioners(defendants) of their valuable rights-Both the Courts below had misread and non-read evidence of the parties and had committed material illegalities and irregularities---

Civil Revision 1148-13

NIAMAT BIBI VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE

2024 MLD 1522