1987 PLP 520 (CLC)
N A SEER‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 520 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | N A SEER‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 520 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 520 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 520 (CLC) (N A SEER‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Moin‑ud‑Din Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 53‑A & 54‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑Sale of land, when complete‑‑Possession of land handed over by vendor to vendees after receiving stipulated sale price‑‑Vendees after taking possession, on assurance of vendor that land would be alienated in their favour, constructed house thereon‑‑Sale of such land in favour of vendees, held, was complete and subsequent sale and alienation by vendor was to take advantage of non‑existence of mutation in favour of previou3 vendees.
Judgment & Decree
2. The land in dispute measuring 13 Marlas belonged to Chhaju who sold it in favour of Muhammad Sharif and Umar Draz for Rs.325 and delivered its possession to them in the year 1959. The vendees constructed house thereon and Chhaju the vendor promised to alienate the land in dispute in their favour and he also assured that the sale had duly been entered in the revenue record. But the vendees came to know that Chhaju had alienated this property in favour of his son‑in‑law Bashir Ahmad on 17‑3‑1986 and, therefore, they invoked the aid of the learned trial Court for the declaration and a perpetual injunction for the protection of their possession.
3. The petitioner contested the said suit and made a number of pleas which are apparent from the following issues:‑ (1) Whether the plaintiffs purchased the land in dispute? (2) Has the suit been correctly valued for the purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction; if not, what is the correct valuation? (3) What is the effect of sale in favour of defendant No.2? (3‑A) Whether the defendants Nos 3 to 9 are bona fide purchasers for value, without notice; if so, its effect? (3‑B) Whether the suit is time‑barred? (3‑C) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file this suit against the defendants Nos. 3 to 9? (4) Relief.
4. Issue No. 1 has only been agitated before me. Muhammad Sharif and Umar Draz purchased the property in dispute from Chhaju and got executed receipt for .the payment of the price. The receipt Exh. P/2 has duly been proved by its scribe Muhammad Ali P.W. 2 and Abdus Salam P.W.5 and Rashid Ahmad P.W. 6, its marginal witesses. Even Abdul Hameed D.W. 1, who examined by the petitioners stated that Chhaju had sold this property verbally and in this manner the stand of Muhammad Sharif and others was admitted by their own witness. In case the property in dispute had not been sold, Chhaju and Bashir Ahmad would not have allowed Muhammad Sharif and Umar Draz to construct their houses. The. petitioners seem to take advantage of the non‑existence of a mutation in favour of Muhammad Sharif and Umar Draz and were prompted to get executed a registered deed in favour of Bashir Ahmad on behalf of Chhaju. The learned lower Courts have rightly found issue No. 1 in favour of the prior vendees. I see no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same in limine. C.M. No. 1527/C of 1986 also stands disposed of. H . B . T . Petition dismissed.