1985 PLP 2481 (CLC)
Mst. SHARIFAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 2481 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst. SHARIFAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑, ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 2481 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑, ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 2481 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 2481 (CLC) (Mst. SHARIFAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G . N . Gohar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 54‑‑"Sale"‑‑Trial Court after declaring document of agreement of sale as sale‑deed, impounding same and ordering plaintiff for furnishing requisite stamp‑‑Appellate Court on appeal confirming said order‑ Contents of agreement showing transfer of ownership in exchange for price paid‑‑Held, document was complete sale‑deed within definition of "sale" given n S. 54 of Transfer of Property Act‑‑No exception could be taken to such finding and no case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction made out. Through this constitutional petition Mst. Sharifan wants this Court to declare orders, dated 20‑10‑1984 and 29‑7‑1984 passed by the learned District Judge respondent No. 1 and Civil Judge respondent No. 2 respectively to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition briefly are that Mst. Sharifan filed a suit for specific performance of agreement against Sohrab respondent No. 3 and Pir Bukhsh respondent No.
4. The issues were framed. While leading evidence, the petitioner‑plaintiff tendered in evidence EXh.P.l, i.e. agreement of sale, dated 4‑4‑1981 which was the basis of the suit, On this the respondent/ defendant raised objection that the document was not an agreement of sale but a complete sale deed, therefore, the same being insufficiently stamped was liable to be impounded. After hearing both sides, the learned Civil Judge respondent No. 2 vide his order, dated 29‑7‑1984 declared the document to be a sale‑deed and impounded it. The petitioner/ plaintiff was required to furnish stamp valued Rs.2,
420. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal before the learned District Judge which was dismissed on 20‑10‑1984; hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel submits that since possession was not delivered at the time of the execution of document Exh. P.1 and mutation/ registration of deed was yet to be effected therefore, the document Exh. P.1 is not a sale‑deed but only an agreement of sale.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. To my assessment Exh.P.l is a complete sale‑deed. The definition of sale given under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, reads as follows:‑‑ "
54. Sale defined, "Sale" is transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised." Now the contents of the documents may be reproduced advantageously: ‑ It is thus very much obvious that the document Exh.P.1 is a complete sale‑deed within the definition of sale given in section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. For what has been stated above, no exception can be taken to the impugned order and no case for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed in limine. H. A. K. Writ refused.
Judgment & Decree
Through this constitutional petition Mst. Sharifan wants this Court to declare orders, dated 20‑10‑1984 and 29‑7‑1984 passed by the learned District Judge respondent No. 1 and Civil Judge respondent No. 2 respectively to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition briefly are that Mst. Sharifan filed a suit for specific performance of agreement against Sohrab respondent No. 3 and Pir Bukhsh respondent No.
4. The issues were framed. While leading evidence, the petitioner‑plaintiff tendered in evidence EXh.P.l, i.e. agreement of sale, dated 4‑4‑1981 which was the basis of the suit, On this the respondent/ defendant raised objection that the document was not an agreement of sale but a complete sale deed, therefore, the same being insufficiently stamped was liable to be impounded. After hearing both sides, the learned Civil Judge respondent No. 2 vide his order, dated 29‑7‑1984 declared the document to be a sale‑deed and impounded it. The petitioner/ plaintiff was required to furnish stamp valued Rs.2,
420. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal before the learned District Judge which was dismissed on 20‑10‑1984; hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel submits that since possession was not delivered at the time of the execution of document Exh. P.1 and mutation/ registration of deed was yet to be effected therefore, the document Exh. P.1 is not a sale‑deed but only an agreement of sale.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. To my assessment Exh.P.l is a complete sale‑deed. The definition of sale given under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, reads as follows:‑‑ "
54. Sale defined, "Sale" is transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised." Now the contents of the documents may be reproduced advantageously: ‑ It is thus very much obvious that the document Exh.P.1 is a complete sale‑deed within the definition of sale given in section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. For what has been stated above, no exception can be taken to the impugned order and no case for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed in limine. H. A. K. Writ refused.