1994 PLP 1773 (SCMR)
ALLAH RAKHA‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUKHTAR AHMAD'BAIG through L.Rs.‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1773 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH RAKHA‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUKHTAR AHMAD'BAIG through L.Rs.‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1773 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1773 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1773 (SCMR) (ALLAH RAKHA‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUKHTAR AHMAD'BAIG through L.Rs.‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- K.M.A. Samdani, Advocate Supreme Court, Instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 24‑2‑1993, of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, passed in C.R. No. 138 of 1985). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider that there being no jurisdictional defect in the judgment of First Appellate Court, who was the ultimate Court of fact, whether High Court erred in law while interfering in the judgment of Appellate Court on facts.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 24‑2‑1993, whereby in C.R. No. 138/85, it reversed the findings of the learned Additional District Judge.
2. The facts in brief are that Mukhtar Ahmad was issued a P.T.O. by the Settlement Department on 30‑1‑1962. On 12‑2‑1962 Mukhtar Ahmad executed two documents, namely, Mortgage Deed and Agreement to sell. The consideration in both the documents was entered as Rs.8,
000. Mukhtar Ahmad filed a suit for possession by redemption of the house in dispute on payment of Rs.8,
000. The suit was contested by the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge granted a preliminary decree in favour of Mukhtar Ahmad, holding that the transaction was a mortgage. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge. The appeal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. He held that the transaction was a sale but the property could not be sold until P.T.D. issued. He did not agree with the trial Court that the transaction was mortgage. Mukhtar Ahmad filed a civil revision before the High Court, which was accepted vide impugned judgment. The learned High Court held that the mortgage amount was to be treated as sale consideration of the sale‑deed duly executed which was to be registered on the issuance of P.T.D., therefore, it cannot be said that the sale was in any manner complete as in that case. there was no need of executing an agreement of sale.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Mortgage Deed and the Agreement to Sell were executed on the same date, and the two documents are to be read together for ascertaining the real intention of the parties. He stated that the sale‑deed could not be executed, as P.T.D. had not been issued in favour of Mukhtar Ahmad. The learned Counsel submitted that Mukhtar Ahmad filed a Surrender Deed dated 5‑10‑1965 before the Settlement Authorities. He also applied to the Income‑tax Authorities for obtaining No Objection Certificate to enable the transfer by sale of the house, which would show that the intention of Mukhtar Ahmad was to sell the property to the petitioner. There was no jurisdictional defect in the judgment' of the Additional District Judge, who was the ultimate Court of fact, and the learned High Court erred in law while interfering in the judgment of the Appellate Court on facts. Leave is granted to consider the above contention. Stay to continue. A‑1093/S Leave granted