2006 PLP 1102 (SCMR)
ZAKI MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus QUDRAT SHER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1102 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | ZAKI MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus QUDRAT SHER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1102 (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 2006 PLP 1102 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mian Muhammad Ajmal 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: 2006 PLP 1102 (SCMR) (ZAKI MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus QUDRAT SHER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 12 & 42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Declaration of title---Observation of High Court under Constitutional jurisdiction---Disputed mutation was assailed by petitioners and High Court while dismissing Constitutional petition observed that suit for specific performance of agreement to sell should have been filed---High Court further observed that the transaction was sham and sale was without consideration---Contention of the petitioners was that they were ready to invoke jurisdiction of civil Court for redressal of their grievances, but the observations made by High Court in the judgment would affect their case on merits---Petitioners wanted Supreme Court to make observation that the Court before whom matter would be placed for decision should dispose of the same independently without being influenced by the observations made by High Court---Validity---If proceedings would be instituted in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court before the Civil Court, such observations should not affect the rnerits of the case in any manner---Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of accordingly. Shaukat Ali Mehr, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all petitions). Muhammad Tahir, Special Attorney for Respondents (in all petitions). Fayyaz Baig, Settlement Clerk, Board of Revenue Office, Dera Ghazi Khan (in C.P. No.2940-L/2000).
- Date of hearing: 17th February, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 15-11-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 2323, 2324 and 2338 of 1990).
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed against the judgment, dated 15-11-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, concluding paragraph whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:
"The mutation of sale was entered on 29-5-1988 by the Patwari. On the same day, it was placed before the E.A.S.O./Collector, who deferred the attestation till verification from the Girdawar. Before the formal attestation of the mutation, general power of attorney was revoked and this fact was brought to the notice of Assistant Collector, who cancelled the mutation/withheld the attestation. Mere statements recorded by the Revenue Officer had not created any right or title in the property and were of no legal consequence. The impugned judgment have also passed on the same basis that the mutation is not a document of title. This is correct proposition of law but the question is that who is to prove that sale had actually taken place and consideration was passed or not. It was to be proved by the vendee particularly when the alleged vendees are minor sons of the general attorney and citation for revocation of power of attorney was also published in local newspapers. Both the Courts have wrongly concluded that petitioner should file a civil suit to prove fraud. Since no title had passed; sale was to be proved by evidence which was not yet given effect, the respondents Nos.3 and 4 should prove their title or they should have filed suit for specific performance. Apparently it is a sham transaction; the sale is without consideration; it was for the vendee to prove the same by evidence that they were transferees for consideration. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and judgments of the Member Board of Revenue and that of Collector are hereby set aside, being illegal and without lawful authority. No order as to costs." (2). Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitions are ready to invoke the jurisdiction of civil Court for redressal of their grievances, but the observations made by the learned Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment, reproduced hereinabove, shall affect their case on merits, therefore, observations may be made that the Court before whom matter shall be placed for decision shall dispose of the same independently without being influenced by the observations made by the learned High Court. Order accordingly and it is observed that if proceedings are instituted in pursuance of impugned judgment before the Civil Court the above observations of the High Court shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner. Thus the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. M.H./Z-12/SC Order accordingly.