2006 PLP 588 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IDREES — Petitioner Versus GHULAM NABI — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 588 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IDREES — Petitioner Versus GHULAM NABI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 588 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 588 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 588 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IDREES — Petitioner Versus GHULAM NABI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Ahmad Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th January, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14-11-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No.51 of 1989).
S. 27
Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss.58, 59 & 60
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Sale through registered deed
Actual sale price, determination of-Trial Court passed decree for amount of Rs.21,000 being actual price as against amount of Rs.45,000 mentioned in the sale-decd
Such decree was affirmed by Appellate Court and High Court in appeal and revision respectively
Marginal witnesses to sale-deed had categorically stated that amount of Rs.21,000 and not Rs.45,000 had been paid as sale consideration
High Court was justified in taking the view that initial presumption arising out of endorsement of Sub-Registrar on registered sale-deed had been rebutted by marginal witnesses of sale deed
Plaintiff had not produced any evidence in rebuttal
Impugned judgment did not suffer from any legal infirmity
Supreme Court dismissed petition. Khalid Bashir v. Fazal Abbas 1981 SCMR 701 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
This petition is directed against judgment, dated 14-11-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.51 of 1989.
2. The suit of the respondent for possession through pre-emption was decreed against the petitioner, by judgment and decree, dated 19-7-1986, passed by the Civil Judge, Kharian District Gujrat, whereby the amount 6t Rs.21,000 being the actual price was determined as against the amount of Rs.45,000 mentioned in the sale-deed. The appeal and Civil Revision No.51 of 1989 of the petitioner were respectively dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat and the Lahore High Court by judgments dated 12-12-1988 and 14-11-2000. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the amount of Rs.45,000 mentioned in the registered sale-deed as the sale price of the land could not have been reduced by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court and the High Court in appeal and revision. Reliance was placed on the case of Khalid Bashir v. Fazal Abbas 1981 SCMR 701.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We find that the marginal witnesses of the sale-deed appeared as P.W..1 and P. W.2 who categorically stated that the amount of Rs.21,000 and not A Rs.45,000 was paid as a sale consideration. The petitioner did not produce any evidence in rebuttal. In the circumstances the Lahore High Court was justified in taking the view that the initial presumption arising out of the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar on the registered sale-deed was rebutted by the marginal witnesses of the sale-deed. The judgment in the case of Khalid Bashir, (supra) was not applicable in the facts an circumstances of this case. We do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the Lahore High Court in the impugned judgment.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. S.A.K./M-828/S Petition dismissed