2003 PLP 956 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD DIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. SAKINA BIBI and. others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 956 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD DIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. SAKINA BIBI and. others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 956 (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 2003 PLP 956 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 956 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD DIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. SAKINA BIBI and. others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed on 14-9-1999 in Regular First Appeal No. 87 of 1999).
Ss. 27(b) & 42
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice
Plaintiff claimed to be the subsequent purchaser of the suit property for valuable consideration and sought benefit of S.27(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1877:
Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff but Appellate Court allowed the appeal and judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was set aside
High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under S.100, C. P. C maintained the judgment and, decree passed by Appellate Court
Plaintiff's sale-deed was subsequent in time and he did not make any inquiry prior to the purchase of disputed property whether the same was encumbered in any manner or not
Plaintiff failed to establish on record the bona fide nature of the transaction claimed by him
No illegality was pointed out warranting. interference in the judgment passed by High Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 14th September, 1999, whereby R.S.A. No.87 of 1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Facts briefly are that the petitioner filed declaratory suit taking exception to the sale-deed No. 1429, dated 13-6-1989, in favour of respondent being collusive without consideration and sought a decree that sale-deed No. 1080 executed on 23,5-1992 in his favour was correct and with consideration being bona fide purchaser. The respondent controverted the stance taken by petitioner/plaintiff. Out of the contradictory pleadings of the parties issues were framed and the evidence was recorded. The learned trial Court after scanning the entire evidence decreed the suit holding the petitioner bona fide purchaser vide judgment, dated 2-5-1996. The respondent No. 1, Mst. Perveen, filed an appeal against the order of the learned trial Judge. The learned Addition District Judge, Depalpur, through his judgment, dated 25th August, 1999, accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment rendered by the trial Court. The petitioner filed R.S.A. 87 of 1999, which has been dismissed through the impugned order Hence this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner's sale-deed is A subsequent in time. It has also been admitted and the same is also reflected from the evidence that the petitioner did not make any inquiry prior to the purchase of disputed property, whether the disputed property was encumbered in any manner or not. The petitioner totally failed to establish or record the bona fide nature of tae transaction claimed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality warranting interference in the impugned judgment. Resultantly this petition is dismissed and the leave is refused. Q.M.H./M-761/S Petition dismissed.