ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Civil Revn. Appln. No.S-63      of  2011

Civil Revn. Appln. No.S-64       of  2011

DATE OF HEARING

 

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

21.03.2013.

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

3. For Hearing of CMA No.179/2011(in R.A. No.63/11)

 

Mr. Rashid Mustafa Solangi, advocate for applicant in both revisions.

Mr. Azizullah Buriro, advocate for respondent No.1 in both revisions. 

Mr. Asif Hussain Chandio, State Counsel.

                   ­          ----------------------

                   By consent the judgment and decree of the appellate Court and the judgment and decree of the trial Court of both the suits are set aside.  The case is remanded to the trial Court to give its findings on the following issues :-

(1)              Whether at the time of execution of the sale deed the father, namely, Syed Chhuttal Shah is mentally and physically not in a position to execute the sale deed and he was almost on the death bed so as to consider the registered sale deed as a nullity?

 

(2)              Whether the property at which it was sold is the market value?

 

(3)              Whether the father with all his senses had executed such deed for his medical treatment?

 

 

                   While considering the aforesaid issues the parties are at liberty to examine additional witnesses, such as, Registrar, immediate relatives and the Surveyor and/or Mukhtiarkar to give its tentative finding regarding the value of the property.  The above order is passed by consent of the parties, as the appellate Court while giving its findings on the points of determination has not settled such points, which are essential and material and since such evidence is lacking, therefore, it is inevitable that some additional evidence be recorded so that the issues involves in this case may be decided in accordance with law.  The reasoning of the appellate Court on the point No.1 are not sufficient to discharge this burden that the executant was seriously ill and could be considered to be on death bed.  Such evidence is material evidence, which is to be brought on record.  The trial Court to conclude within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.  In case he need to conclude the trial on day-to-day hearing, he is at liberty to do so.

 

                   Both the revision applications are disposed of in the above terms.

 

 

                                                                                                JUDGE