Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Citation Name : 2019 MLD 1924 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : MUKARRAM KHAN
Side Opponent : MAAB ZADA
S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 41---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Document---Proof of---Procedure---Trial Court decreed the suit but Appellate Court dismissed the same---Validity---Beneficiary of a document was not only bound to establish the deed by producing marginal witnesses of the same but also to prove the contents of said deed---Executant of impugned agreement to sell was not owner of suit property and transaction was shaky---Second marginal witness of agreement to sell was not produced by the plaintiffs---Plaintiffs had failed to establish agreement to sell before the Trial Court---Plaintiff had to establish his case on his own evidence and could not get benefit from the weakness of defence ---No one could transfer to another a title or a right greater than what he himself possessed---None of the plaintiffs had appeared before the Trial Court to establish that they were bona fide purchasers of suit property---Non-appearance of plaintiffs before the Court was fatal to their claim of being bona fide purchasers---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2019 YLRN 76 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : IRFAN ULLAH
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly ---Bail, refusal of---Abscondence---Effect---Plea of alibi---Scope---Petitioner contended that he was not present at the place of occurrence and co-accused had already been granted bail---Validity---Record revealed that petitioner was one of the nominated accused persons who had specifically been charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant---Complainant herself sustained bullet injury on her thigh---Medico-Legal Report showed that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries on his body---Parties were known to each other, therefore, there was no chance of mis-identification---Motive as alleged in the FIR was previous blood-feud enmity between the parties---Role attributed to the co-accused, who had been granted bail, was distinguishable as he had been attributed role of abetment while role of firing at the complainant party had been attributed to the petitioner---Plea of alibi was not taken by the petitioner at the earliest---No doubt plea of alibi, like other defence plea taken at bail stage, was essentially required to be examined by the Court within a degree of care and caution but belated plea of alibi, prima facie, created an impression that the same was an afterthought, and its evidentiary value would be decided by the Trial Court after recording pro and contra evidence---In view of specific charge supported by the eye-witnesses, medical evidence and un-explained noticeable abscondence sufficiently provided reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was guilty of an offence charged with, which fell within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.--- After completion of investigation challan had been submitted and trial was likely to commence soon---When trial was likely to commence or had begun, bail application was not to be decided on merits and the matter be left to the Trial Court so as not to prejudice case of either side---Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2019 PLD 565 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mrs. IFRAH MURTAZA
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
S. 24---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 87---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Arrest in foreign country---Mala fide---Proof---Petitioner assailed detention of her husband in a foreign country on basis of arrest warrants issued by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and perpetual warrants of arrest issued by Accountability Court---Validity---National Accountability Bureau under S.24(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 could arrest any person at any stage of inquiry or investigation---Bureau had issued notice to husband of petitioner for his appearance before NAB on 25-04-2018 along with relevant documents in order to record his statement but two days prior to such date of arrest warrants were issued on 23-04-2018 by Chairman NAB; as such it showed that NAB was out to arrest husband of petitioner right from beginning without providing him opportunity of hearing and without producing evidence in his defence ---Such acts of NAB were not bona fide---No evidence was taken by Accountability Court to satisfy itself that husband of petitioner had absconded---Without taking any evidence in such regard application under S. 87, Cr.P.C. moved by NAB was allowed by Accountability Court without passing any order on order sheet of court rather same was passed on last page of such application---Such order passed by Accountability Court was "non-speaking order" and court did not apply its own mind before passing the same---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside perpetual warrants of arrest issued by Accountability Court and also set aside red notices issued against husband of petitioner---High Court declared proceedings of extradition of husband of petitioner on basis of such order/warrants as illegal and void, consequently same were also set aside and directed to remove name of husband of petitioner from the Exit Control List---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.