1981 PLP 1712 (CLC)
MUNIR HUSSAIN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1712 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | MUNIR HUSSAIN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1712 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1712 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1712 (CLC) (MUNIR HUSSAIN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rafiq Jared Butt for Appellant.
- Svpd Fagir Hussain for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
- Dates of hearing : 2nd and 5th April. 1980
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑ ‑‑ S. 52‑Lis pendens, doctrine of‑Doctrine of lis pendens not only applicable to case involving transfer of property during pendency of suit but also attracted to case where property other wise dealt with so as to adversely affect rights of any party to suit‑Vendee by confessing judgment in declaratory suit brought by some appellants, agreeing to part with land it% dispute purchased by him earlier‑Vendee in such way defeating pre‑emptive rights sought to be enforced by first respondent by means of suit brought by him‑Respondent No. 2, held, dealt with disputed property as contemplated by S. 52, Act IV of 1882, in such a manner as to adversely affect rights of first respondent qua pre‑emption suit and declaratory decree passed as a result of such conduct of second respondent bit by doctrine of lis pendens. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑
S. 52 .‑Lis pendens, doctrine of‑‑‑Dectaratory decree if allowed to stand, not possible to protect pre‑emptive rights of first respon dent since in event of declaratory decree taking effect very sale pre‑empted by him would disappear leaving him with no right to be enforced by means of pre‑emption suit‑‑Only way to save first respondent from ill effects of declaratory decree, in circumstances, held, to strike down declaratory decree as being void and of no legal effect. ‑(Pre‑emption].
Judgment & Decree
(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑ ‑‑ S. 52‑Lis pendens, doctrine of‑Doctrine of lis pendens not only applicable to case involving transfer of property during pendency of suit but also attracted to case where property other wise dealt with so as to adversely affect rights of any party to suit‑Vendee by confessing judgment in declaratory suit brought by some appellants, agreeing to part with land it% dispute purchased by him earlier‑Vendee in such way defeating pre‑emptive rights sought to be enforced by first respondent by means of suit brought by him‑Respondent No. 2, held, dealt with disputed property as contemplated by S. 52, Act IV of 1882, in such a manner as to adversely affect rights of first respondent qua pre‑emption suit and declaratory decree passed as a result of such conduct of second respondent bit by doctrine of lis pendens. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑
S. 52 .‑Lis pendens, doctrine of‑‑‑Dectaratory decree if allowed to stand, not possible to protect pre‑emptive rights of first respon dent since in event of declaratory decree taking effect very sale pre‑empted by him would disappear leaving him with no right to be enforced by means of pre‑emption suit‑‑Only way to save first respondent from ill effects of declaratory decree, in circumstances, held, to strike down declaratory decree as being void and of no legal effect. ‑(Pre‑emption]. Rafiq Jared Butt for Appellant. Svpd Fagir Hussain for Respondent No. 1. Nemo for Respondent No. 2. Dates of hearing : 2nd and 5th April. 1980