2008 PLP 1433 (SCMR)
INAYAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus ABBAS ALI — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1433 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Falak Sher and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | INAYAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus ABBAS ALI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1433 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1433 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Falak Sher and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1433 (SCMR) (INAYAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus ABBAS ALI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Ghulam Hussain Gulshin, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th October, 2004.
- KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---The petitioners vendees were non-suited by the High Court on the ground of limitation. It has been found as a fact by the two learned Courts i.e. the learned appellate Court and the Honourable Revisional Court that the vendees had not been able to establish that possession had been delivered to them when the sale agreement in question had been executed by the vendor in their favour. The learned Advocate Supreme Court has also not been able to show as to how could a sale be said to be completed before the time when proprietary rights had still not been conferred on the vendor. These were the two essential issues, on account of which, the learned Judge in Chambers had dismissed the petitioners' Civil Revision No.1057 of 1996 which then led them to this Court with the present petition.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 11-10-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Mutton Bench, passed in Civil Revision No.1057-D of 1996).
S. 54
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Transfer of property through sale
Petitioners, who claimed to be vendees of property in question, were non-suited by High Court on ground of limitation
Appellate Court below and High Court in revision, had found, as a fact, that petitioners had not been able to establish that possession of property in question had been delivered to them when sale agreement in question had been executed by vendor in favour of petitioner
Petitioner had failed to show as to how could a sale be said to be completed before the time when proprietary rights had still not been conferred on the vendor
No exception could be taken to the findings and the proposition of law as laid down by High Court.
Petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
The petitioners vendees were non-suited by the High Court on the ground of limitation. It has been found as a fact by the two learned Courts i.e. the learned appellate Court and the Honourable Revisional Court that the vendees had not been able to establish that possession had been delivered to them when the sale agreement in question had been executed by the vendor in their favour. The learned Advocate Supreme Court has also not been able to show as to how could a sale be said to be completed before the time when proprietary rights had still not been conferred on the vendor. These were the two essential issues, on account of which, the learned Judge in Chambers had dismissed the petitioners' Civil Revision No.1057 of 1996 which then led them to this Court with the present petition.
2. Having examined all aspects of the matter, we find that no exception could be taken to the said findings and the proposition of law as laid down by the Honourable High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. H.B.T./I-108/SC Petition dismissed.