Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MAHMOOD BAKHSH And Others VS Respondent: ALLAH BAKHSH
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafi-ur-Rehman Title: MAHMOOD BAKHSH And Others vs ALLAH BAKHSH Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 656 of 1977 Regular Second
Appeal No. 467 of 1967 Date of Judgment:1985-02-19 Reported As: 1985 SCMR 1705 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 10-10-1977, dismissing their Regular Second Appeal. 2. Shamsuddin sold some agricultural land to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.3,000 and a mutation (No. 680) regarding this sale was sanctioned on 20-6-1982. Subsequently Mahmood Bakhsh etc. (petitioners herein) filed a suit alleging that Shamsuddin never sold the land, nor had he received any consideration and the alleged sale and mutation regarding the sale had been obtained by the respondents by fraud. The suit was contested by the respondents. After framing issues and recording evidence the learned trial Court decreed the suit. The respondents filed an appeal which was accepted by the District Judge, Multan vide order, dated 10-6-1967, and the judgment of the learned trial Court was reversed and the petitioners' suit was dismissed. Against this judgment the petitioners went up to the High Court in Second Appeal (No. 467 of 1967), which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Hence the present petition. 3. The main question in the case was as to whether or not Shamsuddin was insane at the the of the sale made by him (i.e. On 20-6-1962). After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned judgments we feel that the learned first appellate Court and the High Court were justified in holding that no such proof had been brought on the record inasmuch as that the doctor who examined Shamsuddin had opined that he was suffering from senile dementia in 1963, while the sale was made by him earlier, in June 1962.
---
## Page 2
We do not consider it a proper case for interference by this Court. The petition is consequently dismissed.