2017 PLP 367 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Appellants Versus Mst. BASEERAT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 367 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Appellants Versus Mst. BASEERAT and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 367 (SCMR)?
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 2017 PLP 367 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 367 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Appellants Versus Mst. BASEERAT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Ikram Khatana, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
- Sh. Naveed Shehryar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Najma Parveen, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 14.7.2009 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.R. No. 1761 of 2000)
S. 54
Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss.17 & 49
Unregistered agreement to sell
Such an agreement would not confer any title upon the vendee in the immovable property.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The appellants filed a suit challenging the registered sale deed in favour of the respondents qua the property in question which has been decreed by the learned Trial Court and the appeal filed by the respondents has been dismissed. However, the learned High Court has interfered in the revisional jurisdiction and by setting aside the impugned judgments before it, has dismissed the suit.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that such concurrent findings could not be interfered with as the reasons assigned therein were founded upon proper appreciation of evidence.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and find that it is not a case pertaining to appreciation of evidence, rather about the correct application of law. The appellants claim that the property in issue was originally transferred in favour of one Barkat Ali by the Settlement Department who had entered into an agreement to sell with their grandfather, namely, Allah Rakha who made a will in their favour by virtue whereof they have acquired the ownership in order to adjudicate if a valid sale had taken place in favour of Allah Rakha by Barkat Ali which could pass on a valid title to the former who thereafter could make a valid will in favour of the petitioners. Be that as it may, when questioned as to what is a sale and how a sale is made, though the provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (the Act) have been read, but learned counsel has not been able to establish if the property could at all be sold in favour of Allah Rakha through an unregistered agreement to sell. It is also mandated in the second part of section 54 of the Act that such an agreement would not confer any right to the property. Moreover the provisions of section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 read with section 17 of the Act also come in the way of the appellants as the agreement to sell of the property would not confer any title in favour of Allah Rakha allegedly executed by Barkat Ali which could further confer any rights in the immovable property unto the appellants. In light whereof, as these aspects were not considered by the first two courts, the learned High Court has rightly interfered and accepted the revision petition. No case for interference has been made out. Dismissed accordingly. MWA/M-88/SC Appeal dismissed.