1987 PLP 106 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM ABBAS‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 106 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM ABBAS‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 106 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 106 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 106 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM ABBAS‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 11‑2‑1985 passed in Civil Revision No.619 of 1984). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 43‑‑Sale of land by, unauthorised person‑‑Vendor subsequently acquiring title in land sold‑‑Effect of‑‑Suit for declaration‑‑Petitioners claiming ownership of land on account of purchase‑‑Land acquired by Thal Development Authority and part of it later returned to owners/vendors‑‑Suit dismissed on ground that land purchased by petitioners was in excess of vendors' share‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that land sold came under ownership of vendors after acquisition by That Development Authority and vendors were bound to satisfy petitioners' claim to the extent vendors received land back from Authority. Nemo for the Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Qazi Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for the Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1986. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 11‑2‑1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' Civil Revision arising out of a declaratory suit based on claim of ownership on account of purchase, was dismissed. According to the facts given by the learned counsel, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners purchased 554 Kanals of land from the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondent. The transaction was of a larger area but the remaining land, learned counsel stated, was purchased by other persons who are no more in the contest. Learned Counsel further stated that the land in question was village Shamilat and it had come under the acquisition proceedings by the Thal Development Authority. The said land along with other land belonging to the vendor after having been acquired, classified and made into blocks, was returned to the owner in four Chaks i. e., 527 to
530. The land sold to the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest was included in Chak No.
530. On account of dispute having arisen between the parties the petitioner‑side filed a suit for declaration regarding ownership of the land in dispute. It was decreed to the extent of 98 Kanals only. The suit regarding the remaining land, as explained by the learned counsel, was dismissed on acceptance of the respondents, (defendants), plea that the Shamilat land purchased by the petitioners (plaintiffs) was in excess of the share to which the vendor was entitled. Appeal and revision filed by the petitioner‑side having been dismissed, they have now sought to appeal. Learned counsel relying on the statement of the Special Qanoongo has contended that the land sold to the petitioners' predecessor in‑interest came under the ownership of the vendor after the acquisition by the Thal Development Authority in Chak No.
530. That being so, the vendor (and his successor‑in‑interest) was bound by virtue of section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, on the principle of feeding the estoppels, to satisfy the petitioners' claim in its entirety to the extent the vendor received land back as a "return" from the Thal Development Authority in Chak No.530. Question raised require examination. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs 2,
500. M.I.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted