1997 PLP 2649 (MLD)
GHAUS BAKHSH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 17 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 2649 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, J |
| Parties | GHAUS BAKHSH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 17 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑, Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 2649 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑, Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 2649 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 2649 (MLD) (GHAUS BAKHSH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 17 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Jahanian for Petitioners.
- Sahibzadah Mehboob Ali Khan for Respondents Nos. l to 6.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑‑Plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction that they were owners in possession of land in question‑‑‑ Defendants claimed that they had also purchased land from the same vendor and were bona fide purchasers for value and had invested huge amount on construction of house thereon‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit was decreed by Courts below‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Original owners had sold their total holdings, out of which plaintiffs had purchased land in question‑‑‑Nothing was left with original owners, therefore, question of selling disputed land to defendants could hardly arise‑‑‑Even if defendants had spent some money on construction of house, such fact, per se, could not entitle them to defeat plaintiff's suit‑‑‑Defendants having failed to show that at the time of sale in question, some land was still left in the name of original owners, which could be purchased by them, Trial Court's decree in favour of plaintiffs as affirmed by Appellate Court would not call for interference‑‑ Defendants, however, if so advised, could seek their remedy against vendors.
Judgment & Decree
Sahibzadah Mehboob Ali Khan for Respondents Nos. l to
6. The suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondents herein to the effect that they were owners in possession of an area measuring 5 Kanals, 13 Marlas was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Lodhran, but the relief for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (petitioners herein) from interfering in their possession was not granted. However, on appeal filed by the respondents, the suit was decreed, as prayed for in the plaint. Hence this Civil Revision.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners had purchased land measuring 2 Kanals, 5 Marlas from one Hassan Bakhsh through sale‑deed dated 26‑1‑1968 and the two Courts below have erred in law in setting aside the said sale and the consequential Mutation No. 198, dated 26‑2‑1969.
3. There is a concurrent finding of fact that the total area measuring 9 Kanals, 4 Marlas, out of which the petitioners claim to have purchased land measuring 2 Kanals, 5 Marlas, had already been sold through Exhs.P‑3 to P‑6, and nothing was left behind which could be alienated in favour of the petitioners.
4. According to the petitioners, they purchased land from Sq. No.28 Khasra No.20/1/2 Khata No.
136. Mauza Sandhiwala which was brought under consolidation in 1973 and the petitioners were allowed land in exchange in Sq. No. 17 Khasra Nos. 11/2 and 20, measuring 5 Kanal, 13 Marlas. Admittedly, the alienations evidenced through mutations Exhs.P‑3 to P‑b, whereby the original owners had sold their total holding measuring 9 Kanals, 4 Marlas, hold the field. Since nothing was left with the original owner thereafter, the question of selling the disputed land to the petitioners vide mutation Exh.P‑7 could hardly arise.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they had spent a sum of rupees seven/eight lacs of rupees in raising construction over the piece of land purchased through Exh.P‑7 and that they are bona fide purchasers for value. The petitioners made inquiries from the Revenue Authorities and finding that the name of the original owner still subsisted in the Jamabandi as the owner of the disputed land, they entered into the transaction of sale with him. It may be true that the petitioners, in the meantime, spent some money on the construction of house, but this fact per se, cannot entitle them to defeat the suit of the respondents. It appears that the petitioners were taken in by the incorrect entries in the Revenue Record and they acting on the misrepresentation of facts made to them by the original owner, purchased the disputed piece of land. Be that as it may, the petitioners having failed to show that indeed, at the time of the disputed sale, some land was still left m the name of the original owner, which could be purchased by them, the decree of the learned trial Court‑, as modified by the learned Additional District Judge, merits no interference. The petitioners may, if so advised, seek their referred, against their vendor.
6. There is no force in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. A.A./G‑274/L Revision dismissed.