1998 PLP 2052 (SCMR)
MAQSOODA BEGUM and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. JAN BEGUM and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2052 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | MAQSOODA BEGUM and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. JAN BEGUM and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2052 (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 1998 PLP 2052 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2052 (SCMR) (MAQSOODA BEGUM and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. JAN BEGUM and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mujeebur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1995.
- Mujeebur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- 4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the respondents did not seek cancellation of the sale deed in respect of the suit property whereby the land in dispute was alienated in favour of petitioner No. 1. The suit for cancellation of Mutation No.3568, dated 29-4-1981 based thereon was not maintainable. Learned counsel for petitioners on a question had to admit that no issue in respect thereto had ever been claimed nor this contention was emphatically pressed into service before the trial Court or the First Appellate Court. The petitioners are, therefore, estopped to raise this point. Mst. Jan Begum had purchased the suit property through registered sale deed and obtained possession thereof as was admitted by Bostan Khan, the real brother of Mirza Khan, in his deposition made before the trial Court. The alienation of the land made by Mirza Khan in favour of Mst. Maqsooda Begum, his wife, was undoubtedly beyond his entitlement; therefore, all the three Courts, after evaluating evidence on the record, held that transaction of little consequence as against the sale transaction of the land in dispute in favour of Mst. Jan Begum. The concurrent findings of all the three Courts recorded in favour of the respondents merit no interference by this Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 9‑10‑1994 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Civil Revision No.88 of 1989). ‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for declaration that plaintiff was owner of land in question on basis of registered sale‑deed and was in possession thereof, and that mutation of land in question sanctioned in favour of defendant was ineffective against her rights‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit was decreed by all the Courts including the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Defendant's contention that plaintiff did not seek cancellation of sale‑deed in respect of land in question whereby such land was alienated in favour of defendant and that suit for cancellation of mutation based thereon was not maintainable was of no consequence having neither been raised before Trial Court nor before Appellate Court‑‑‑Defendants were, thus, estopped to raise such point before Supreme Court‑‑‑Plaintiff had purchased land in question through registered sale‑deed and obtained possession thereof‑‑‑Alienation of land by vendor in favour of his wife afterwards including suit land was admittedly beyond his entitlement, therefore, all the three Courts after evaluating evidence on record had rightly found subsequent transaction in favour of vendor's wife to be of no consequence against sale transaction of land in question in favour of plaintiff‑‑‑Concurrent findings of all the three Courts recorded in favour of plaintiff would warrant no interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.
Leave to appeal is sought by the petitioners against judgment dated 9-10-1994 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby Civil Revision No.88 of 1989 filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. On 14-6-1986, Mst. Jan Begum respondent, instituted suit against Mst. Maqsooda Begum and other heirs of Mirza Khan claiming therein that she had purchased 1 Kanal of land out of Khasra No. 1591 from one Muhammad Yousuf and that she was in possession thereof. It was further pleaded by her in the suit that Mirza Khan had sold the land measuring 2 Kanals 13 Marlas out of Khasra No. 1591 in favour of his wife Mst. Maqsooda Begum. The vendor was not owner of the land to the extent alienated by him and, therefore, the sale of the suit land made by him was in excess of his share. The Mutation No.3568 dated 29-4-1981 attested in respect to the aforementioned sale was ineffective qua her rights in the suit property.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioners but after perusing evidence on the record led by the parties, the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 17-11-1987, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The petitioners preferred appeal which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court and their revision petition also failed before the Lahore High Court vide impugned ,judgment, referred to above.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the respondents did not seek cancellation of the sale deed in respect of the suit property whereby the land in dispute was alienated in favour of petitioner No.
1. The suit for cancellation of Mutation No.3568, dated 29-4-1981 based thereon was not maintainable. Learned counsel for petitioners on a question had to admit that no issue in respect thereto had ever been claimed nor this contention was emphatically pressed into service before the trial Court or the First Appellate Court. The petitioners are, therefore, estopped to raise this point. Mst. Jan Begum had purchased the suit property through registered sale deed and obtained possession thereof as was admitted by Bostan Khan, the real brother of Mirza Khan, in his deposition made before the trial Court. The alienation of the land made by Mirza Khan in favour of Mst. Maqsooda Begum, his wife, was undoubtedly beyond his entitlement; therefore, all the three Courts, after evaluating evidence on the record, held that transaction of little consequence as against the sale transaction of the land in dispute in favour of Mst. Jan Begum. The concurrent findings of all the three Courts recorded in favour of the respondents merit no interference by this Court. In our view, this is not fit case for grant of leave to the petitioners in the matter. Consequently, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. A.A./M-89/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused