2007 PLP 281 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAJ BIBI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 281 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Azmat Saeed, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAJ BIBI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 281 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 281 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Azmat Saeed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 281 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAJ BIBI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
- Malik Saqib Hussain Awan for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and LRs. of the Respondents.
- Malik Ghulam Siddiqui Awan for Respondents Nos. 4 to 6.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.52
Suit for specific performance of agreement
Suit had been concurrently dismissed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court
Validity--Contention of plaintiff was that execution of document in question/agreement of sale, was admitted, but that aspect of the matter had not been considered by Appellate Court
Defendants having acquired rights in the suit property during pendency of litigation, principle of lis pendens would apply, in the case
Said aspects of the matter, which went to the very root of the lis, having not been considered by the Courts below, impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below could not be maintained
Same were set aside and case was remanded to Appellate Court to decide the matter afresh after hearing both parties, accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This Civil Revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree, dated 20-10-1999, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the present petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance against respondent No.1 in respect of the property in dispute. Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 are subsequent purchasers of the suit property and were subsequently impleaded. The said suit was contested and it was claimed by respondent No.1 that she never entered into an agreement with the petitioner, who has fraudulently prepared the documents sued upon, which had been thumb marked by respondent No.1 bank on trust and on representation of the petitioner that the same was for managing the land in dispute. On the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence led. Whereafter, vide judgment and decree, dated 20-9-1997 the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal, which failed to find favour and was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this revision petition has also been perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned appellate judgment and decree wherein it has been held that the evidence produced by the petitioner-plaintiff does not prove beyond any shadow of any doubt the existence of or genuineness of the alleged agreement to sell; and further it has been held that respondents Nos. 4 to 6 are bona fide purchasers. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the execution of the document in question is admitted. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Appellate Court. Similarly respondents Nos. 2 to 6 acquired rights in the suit property during the pendency of the litigation hence the principle of lis pendens would apply. It is clear and obvious that the aforesaid aspects of the matter, which go to the very root of the lis have not been considered. In the circumstances, the impugned appellate judgments and decrees cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. Consequently, this case is remanded to the first Appellate Court to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties in the light of above observations. The respondent shall finally decide the appeal expeditiously, if possible, within four months from the date of receipt of this order. H.B.T./M-639/L Case Remanded.