2006 PLP 677 (CLC)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 677 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1 877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 677 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1 877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 677 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 677 (CLC) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Naveed Shaharyar for Petitioner.
- Riasat Ali Chaudhry for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th May, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 39, 42 & 54-Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale-deed--Dispute in the present case related to land measuring 1 Kanal, 7 Marlas which was claimed to have been purchased by petitioner
Suit by respondents against petitioner vendor was finally decreed concurrently by Courts below and said decree had attained finality
Petitioner, however was aggrieved of finding in appellate judgment that sale-deed in respect of land purchased by him was void-Petitioner had claimed that Vendor being owner in village, was entitled to proportionate ownership in Abadi Deh and respondents being not owners in the village, could not have asserted any title to said land
Petitioner, on that basis had rightly contended that findings of Appellate Court in respect of sale-deed regarding said land of 1 Kanal and 7 Marlas, was gratuitous and could not have been passed, once the suit had been dismissed--Finding of Appellate Court holding that sale-deed in respect of 1 Kanal and 7 Marlas land was illegal and void, was not Justified, in circumstances
Portion of decree in appellate judgment, was set aside-Judgment and decree of Trial Court, as a consequence, stood restored.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--The dispute in this case relates to land measuring I Kanal, 7 Marlas situated in Abadi Deh. Nazar Muhammad petitioner/defendant purchased this property from Maulvi Chiragh Din deceased (respondent No.7) by means of sale-deed (Exh.D.1), dated 20-12-1987.
2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No.7 seeking declaration of title to the suit-land. By way of consequential relief, they also prayed for a permanent injunction and for cancellation of the sale-deed (Exh.D.1). It was their case that they were owners of the property and Maulvi Chiragh Din (respondent No.7) had no title which he could convey to the petitioner/defendant. Both Courts below have concurrently held that the respondents/plaintiffs have failed to establish title to the land. Their suit, as a consequence, has been dismissed by concurrent decrees of the learned trial Court dated 4-10-1992 and of the learned Appellate Court dated 5-6-1999. Since the respondents/plaintiffs have not impugned the aforesaid decrees, the same to the extent of the respondents/plaintiffs, have attained finality. The -1 petitioner, however, is aggrieved of the finding in the appellate judgment that the sale-deed (Exh.D.l) is void. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Maulvi Chiragh Din was owner in the village and was, thus, entitled to proportionate ownership in the Abadi Deh. The respondents/plaintiffs were not owners in the village and, therefore, A' could not have asserted any title to the land in dispute. On this basis, it has rightly been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the learned Appellate Court in respect of the sale-deed (Exh.D. 1) is gratuitous and could not have been passed once the suit had been dismissed. In the circumstances the finding of the learned Appellate Court holding that the sale-deed is illegal and void is not justified. This portion of the decree, which is based on the reasoning in para. 8 of the appellate judgment, is set aside. As a consequence, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 4-10-1992 stands restored. H.B.T./N-75/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly