2002 PLP 1409 (MLD)
Mst. MAQSOODAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MUQARAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1409 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | Mst. MAQSOODAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MUQARAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1409 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1409 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1409 (MLD) (Mst. MAQSOODAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MUQARAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahida Hussain Khan for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 12th April, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.42‑‑‑Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.52‑‑‑Suit for declaration‑‑‑Principle of lis pendens‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Plaintiffs who claimed ownership of suit house had challenged sale of house made in favour of predecessor‑in‑interest of defendants‑‑‑Defendants had claimed that they had purchased the suit house from Town Committee vide sale‑deed and that they were owners in possession on basis of that sale‑deed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Sale having been made during pendency of suit, principle of lis pendens would be applicable, besides defendants had failed to establish, if Town Committee was owner of suit property which could validly be conveyed to defendants‑‑‑Courts below, in circumstances, had rightly decreed the suit as plaintiffs had proved that suit property was owned by their predecessor‑in‑interest. Muhammad Zahoor, Tax Clerk, Municipal Committee, Shahpur, District Sargodha.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Zahoor, Tax Clerk, Municipal Committee, Shahpur, District Sargodha. Date of hearing: 12th April, 2001. Respondents, being successors‑in‑interest of Imam Bakhsh , on 16‑6‑1986 filed a suit for declaration, claiming owners of the suit house and challenging the sale; made by one Muhammad Hayat in favour of Muhammad Azeem and further sale by Muhammad Azeem to Muhammad Ramzan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners. The petitioners contested the suit; and took up the plea that by virtue of the agreement ; they had purchased the property from Muhammad Azeem, who had earlier agreed to purchase the same from Muhammad Hayat. In this behalf, it was also submitted, that the possession was delivered to them. Anyhow, issues were framed, parties were put to trial, and the learned Civil Judge, has decreed the suit, holding that the property in question, was owned by Imam Bakhsh, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents; this view on appeal tiled by the petitioners, has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the two Courts below, have failed to consider Exhs.D.1 to D.3, Khasra Girdawaris showing the possession of Muhammad Azeem.
3. When confronted that even if these documents are considered, would there be any reflection upon the judgments of the Courts below, qua the findings that the property in question was owned by Imam Bakhsh, learned counsel for the petitioners; has not been able to satisfy in this behalf.
4. The other contention, that the property has been purchased by the petitioners from the Town Committee, vide sale‑deed dated 20‑7‑1987, thus, they are the owners in possession on the basis of the sale‑deed; firstly, it may be stated that the said sate is during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the principle of lis pendens would be applicable besides, the petitioners have tailed to establish, if the Town Committee, was the owner of the suit property, which could be validly conveyed to the petitioners.
5. In the light of above, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T.IM‑1137/L Revision dismissed.