1993 PLP 1977 (SCMR)
HAKIM ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SAKHI MUHAMMAD and 16 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1977 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAKIM ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SAKHI MUHAMMAD and 16 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1977 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1977 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1977 (SCMR) (HAKIM ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SAKHI MUHAMMAD and 16 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th July, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28‑11‑1992 in R.SA. No. 271 of 1975). ‑‑‑‑‑S. 54‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Contentions raised were that the question whether sale in favour of petitioner was with or without consideration was one of fact and High Court could not re‑open the finding of First Appellate Court in second appeal; that High Court had overlooked the statement of vendor made in Court in an earlier litigation that he had sold the land to petitioners and that no question was asked from him whether he had received any consideration; and that finding of the High Court to the effect that sale in question was without consideration was not sustainable‑‑‑Leave to anneal was granted to examine the contents.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to about 80 Kanals of agricultural land situate in Chak No.45/TDA, Tehsil Bhakkar. It was admittedly owned by one Jagga Khan who died on 8‑12‑1970 without leaving any issue. About a year before his death, by a registered deed dated 17‑12‑1969, he sold the land to the petitioner. On 26‑7‑1971 the respondents filed a civil suit for the possession of the land in dispute as his collaterals. They alleged that Jagga Khan had not sold the land in dispute to the petitioner and that the sale deed was a forged document.
2. Earlier, respondent No.1l and some others had also instituted a suit for possession over the suit land on the ground that the petitioner was their tenant but was reluctant to hand over its possession to them. Jagga Khan was made a party to the suit but he died during its pendency.
3. The trial Court tried the two suits together. It decreed both suits, holding, so far as the sale‑deed of 16‑12‑1969, was concerned that it was without consideration. From the judgment of the learned trial Court the petitioner filed an appeal in so far as the suit of respondents Nos. 1 to 10 was concerned. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court with the finding that there was no reason why the genuineness of the registered sale deed should not have been assumed. From the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge respondents Nos.1 to 10 filed a second appeal in the High Court. A learned Single Judge accepted the appeal, after restoring the finding of the trial Court that the sale was without consideration. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. In support of this petition it is contended that the question whether the sale in favour of the petitioner was with or without consideration was one of fact and it was not available to the High Court to reopen the finding of the first appellate Court in second appeal. Apart from that, it had overlooked the statement made by Jagga Khan himself which he made on 22‑5‑1970 in the suit filed by respondent No.11 and some others wherein he had clearly stated that he had sold the land to the petitioner. No question was asked from him whether he had received any consideration. In view of this position the finding of the High Court that the sale was without consideration was not sustainable.
5. The contentions raised in support of this petition need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. AA./H‑169/S Leave granted.