1991 PLP 344 (MLD)

(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Art.114

Estoppcl--Defendant having executed sale-deed in favour of plaintiff was bound by the representation he made in the sale-deed that he was owner of land in question which he had sold

Plaintiff having purchased such land, acted on such representation

Defendant had thus no option to question the veracity of his own representation and was thus estopped from doing so. Naimatullah Soomro for Applicant. The facts involved in this revision application are simple. The applicant; herein, executed a deed of sale, dated 19-6-1976, in favour of the respondent, pertaining to 1/3rd share in property bearing Survey No.E/377. Evidently, some correction as to description of the property was made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad, vide his order dated 16-7-1984. Notice dated 4-11-1985 was given to the applicant/vendor for execution of a deed of correction in respect of sale-deed dated 19-6-1976, which having remained fruitless, relevant Chairman Panchayat was approached but since the vendor did not co-operate even there, the respondent/purchaser was constrained to file a Civil Suit bearing F.C. Suit No.19/88. In the written statement the applicant/vendor admitted the execution of the deed of sale but maintained that the property in question belonged to his father, Haji Moosa Memon, who had since expired, leaving several legal heirs including himself and his mother. He pleaded that the Deed of Sale pertained only to his share in the property. belonging to his father. However, the Deed of Sale itself covers the entire 1/3rd property, allegedly, belonging to Haji Moosa Memon, deceased father of the applicant/vendor. On the suit proceeding to trial, the applicant/vendor went to the extent of even denying his signature on the deed of sale. The learned trial Court made remarks on the demeanour of the applicant and finding that absolute sale of the entire 1/3rd share, allegedly, belonging to Haji Moosa Memon, had been made, decreed- the suit. Appeal against such decree also failed. The learned two Courts below have found that the sale is as old as of 1976 and none has challenged it, so far, the applicant/vendor admittedly made and completed the sale though, allegedly, only of his inherited share from out of the 1/3rd belonging to his deceased father. However, the deed of sale spoke of the entire 1/3rd share. These findings, concurrent as they are, would not be open to question, unless a jurisdictional error is shown to subsist. However, this revision application should fail also on the ground that under Article 114 of the Qaunoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the applicant/vendor is bound by the representation he made in the deed of sale naively, that he was the owner of the entire 1/3rd share in the property, which he sold through such deed. The respondent/vendee having purchased such share, acted on such representation. It is, therefore, not open to the applicant to question the veracity of his own representation and he is estopped from doing so. This could be done by the other owners, if any, but whether they can do so, after such a long time; I would not be prepared to hazard an opinion on that subject. As such, I find no merit in this revision application and dismiss it in limine. With such dismissal, CMA 763/89 also stands dismissed. A.A./A-972/K Revision dismissed.