1987 PLP 403 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 403 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hasan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 403 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 403 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Akhtar Hasan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 403 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan for Petitioner.
- Sardar Khalid Mahmood for Respondent No.1.
- Nemo for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 1st March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
S.27(b)--Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.50--Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.53-A
Registered sale-deed executed in favour of subsequent vendee without notice of previous agreement to sell in favour of prior vendee-- Validity of--Plaintiff alleging himself to be prior vendee of disputed plot, failed to establish that subsequent vendee of same plot had prior notice of previous sale in his favour- Registered sale-deed, executed in favour of subsequent vendee without prior notice of prior sale in favour of plaintiff in respect of same plot, in spite of being later in time, held, would prevail against prior unregistered agreement of sale alleged to have been executed in favour of plaintiff in circumstances.
S.53-A--Part performance of contract--Proof--Plaintiff, alleging to be prior vendee failed to establish his possession of plot--Possession of subsequent vendee over plot in dispute was however proved- Absence of possession of prior vendee/ plaintiff over plot in dispute, held, would tantamount to absence of part performance of contract by- him which might have put subsequent vendee on guard--Subsequent sale made in favour of subsequent vendee would prevail in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Barkat Ali v. Administrator Thal Development P L D, 1978 Lah. 867 ref. Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Appellant. Sh. Abdul Majid for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 12th April, 1987. The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal are that the appellants filed a suit against the respondent authority challenging the order resuming the land on the ground that interest at the rate of 9% on the instalments could at best be recovered and the levy of interest at the rate of 13 % was illegal and unauthorised. After framing issues and recording evidence of the parties the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 26-4-1975 in the following terms:- "As a result of my findings above the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and the same is decreed to this extent only that the order of resumption by the defendant No.l is illegal and void. The remaining instalments shall be paid on behalf of Sardar Muhammad and others and the department is quite competent to proceed against the transferees for the violation of the terms and conditions. No order is made in respect of the costs of the suit." Administrator Thai Development Authority challenged the aforesaid decree by filing an appeal before the learned District Judge Mianwali. This appeal was accepted holding that jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands barred with retrospective effect by the provisions of the Amending Ordinance XIX of 1975. This led to the filing of the present second appeal by the appellant. The view that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands barred by the aforesaid Ordinance has not been upheld by the High Court. The first judgment in the series was delivered in Barkat Ali v. Administrator Thal Development P L D 1978 Lah.
867. I have also held in Muhammad Sharif v. Thal Development through Administrator Thal Development Bhakkar and another (R.S.A. No.779 of 1975) that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to go into the question whether the act of the Collector in cancelling the allotment was taken under the Act or not. It will, therefore, be seen that I have thus agreed with the view expressed by the learned Judge of this Court in the case of Barkat Ali. For the reasons given in R.S.A. No.779 of 1975 the judgment and decree, dated 31-7-1975 is, therefore, set aside. As the learned District Judge has not decided the appeal on merits the same is hereby remanded to the learned District Judge Bhakkar for fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. H. B. T./F-19/L Appeal accepted/Order accordingly.