2013 PLP 1600 (SCMR)
ABBAS ALI — Appellant Versus LIAQAT ALI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1600 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | ABBAS ALI — Appellant Versus LIAQAT ALI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1600 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1600 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1600 (SCMR) (ABBAS ALI — Appellant Versus LIAQAT ALI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Misbah-ul-Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Sh. Naveed Shehryar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Najma Parveen, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 13th June, 2013.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 11-5-2012 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in R.S.A. No.134 of 2005.)
Ss.12 & 27(b)
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17, 79 & 81
Suit for specific performance of agreement
Two witnesses, non-production of
Bona fide purchaser for value without notice
Effect
Plaintiff sought execution of agreement to sell made by defendant in his favour
Suit was dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court but High Court decreed the same in favour of plaintiff
Defendant in his written statement admitted the agreement to sell in question
Initial onus to prove that subsequent transferee was bona fide purchaser, was on defendant
Father of subsequent transferee appeared as witness during trial and claimed that entire transaction/deal was initiated through him and that he knew about agreement to sell between plaintiff and defendant
Subsequent transferee, in circumstances, failed to discharge his initial onus with regard to plea/point and he was not entitled to protection of equitable doctrine
Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court
Appeal was dismissed. Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others PLD 2011 SC 241 and Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Lal Khatoon and others PLD 2011 SC 296 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Respondent brought a suit for specific performance, inter alia, against the appellant who is the subsequent purchaser of the suit property. The suit was originally dismissed by the 'learned trial court and the appeal of the respondent was also dismissed, however, in RSA, respondent has succeeded and a decree has been passed in his favour. In this appeal there are two main points involved, whether the respondent having not produced one of the marginal witnesses of the agreement to sell in question was unable to prove the same in terms of Article 17(2) read with Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and whether the appellant is a bona fide purchaser and has protection of the provisions of section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that in the written statement filed by the appellant, he has admitted the agreement to sell in question obviously in the light of the above and in view of the provision of Article 81 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the rigor and rider of the law laid down in Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others (PLD 2011 SC 241) would not be an obstacle in the way of the respondent. As far as the question of bona fide purchase is concerned, suffice it to say that in the judgment reported as Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Lal Khatoon and others (PLD 2011 SC 296) the criteria in this regard has been set. The initial, onus, to prove that the subsequent transferee is the bona fide purchaser, is on him, the appellant in the instant case. However, in the present case it has been noted that D.W.3, father of the appellant appeared as a witness and also claimed that the entire transaction/deal was initiated through him and that he knew about the agreement to sell between the vendor and respondent No.l. In the light of the above, as the appellant had failed to discharge his initial onus with regard to the plea/point, resultantly, he is not even entitled to the protection of the equitable doctrine mentioned above. We do not find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. MH/A-25/SC Appeal dismissed.