1989 PLP 1574 (SCMR)
FATEH MUHAMMAD and 6 others‑‑Petitioners Versus SUBA KHAN Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1574 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afza1 Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, ,JJ |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD and 6 others‑‑Petitioners Versus SUBA KHAN Respondent |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act fry of 1882)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1574 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act fry of 1882)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1574 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afza1 Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, ,JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1574 (SCMR) (FATEH MUHAMMAD and 6 others‑‑Petitioners Versus SUBA KHAN Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ellahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 9‑4‑88 in R.SA. No.408 of 1971). ‑‑‑S53‑A‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12‑‑Suit for possession‑‑Interpretation of document‑‑Contention that in case document in question would have been treated as an agreement to sell then notwithstanding the possession of the respondent some further questions might have arisen and if on the other hand the document would have been treated as the deed of sale itself then also the questions regarding registration would have arisen‑‑Such question did not arise because the finding of the High Court regarding interpretation of document was upheld by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULIAH, J.‑The plaintiffs side in a suit for possession of the land in dispute, having failed throughout up to the High, Court with the consequence that the suit stands dismissed, has sought leave to appeal. Although some other points relating to interpretation of section 53‑A of the Transfer of Property Act are involved in this case, learned counsel has rightly pointed out that the very first question on which would depend the other questions is: whether, the document in dispute relied upon from the respondent's side is an acknowledgement of a past oral sale in favour of the respondent. And if it is held to be so; whether, the respondent being in possession of the suit land could be denied his claim to retain the same. We have, with the help of the learned counsel, read the document in question. It is correct that the word is used therein but the other words preceding it namely are also very significant. The word from the reading of the document as a whole, appears to be in the context that the oral sale having been completed the vendor had promised that the mutation in the Revenue Records shall be got sanctioned by him within the specified time. The agreement is to this effect only. It is not an agreement of sale which as held by the High Court stood already concluded, therefore, either the document in question is an acknowledgement of a previous completed sale or an agreement to get the mutation proceedings completed within the specified time. In either case the learned counsel for the petitioners agrees, the plaintiff/petitioners' side would not be benefited. The learned counsel, it needs to be noticed, rightly took the position that in case the document in question would have been treated as an agreement to sell then notwithstanding the possession of the respondent some further questions might have arisen. And if on the other hand the document in question would have been treated as the deed of sale itself then also the questions regarding registration would have arisen. They obviously do not arise now; because the finding of the High Court regarding interpretation of the document is being upheld. In the light of what has been stated above, there is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.A.K/F‑118/S Leave refused.