Sale deed

2024 CLC 1764 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.41 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.7Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17 & 79Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.27(b), 42 & 54Sale deedProofNon-production of stamp vender and revenue officer as witnesses to prove first sale deedEffectPleadingsScopeNon-deposit of remaining sale considerationEffectExecution of two sale deeds by respondent No.2 being father/natural guardian of minors

First was allegedly executed in furtherance of oral sale in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff, which remained unregistered due to paucity of guardianship certificate

Second was executed in favour of petitioner (admittedly bona fide purchaser for value without notice), which was duly registered and possession was given to the petitioner

Suit for declaration with permanent injunction was instituted by respondent No.1 challenging he sale made in favour of the petitioner, in which respondent No.2 filed two written statements i.e. one in favour of respondent No.1 conceding his claim and other denying the same

Said suit was concurrently decreed

Contention of the petitioner was that no details of the oral transaction had been mentioned in his plaint and marginal witnesses of first sale deed were not produced by respondent No.1 in his evidence, therefore, requirement of law had not been fulfilled

Validity

There was a discrepancy between two written statements submitted by respondent No.2 that the first written statement was not verified on oath and the second written statement was verified and also challenged the authenticity of the first statement

Respondent No. 2 claimed that the first statement was neither signed nor authorized by him

Trial Court accepted said challenge and proceeded to frame issues and record evidence without relying on the first statement, consequently, it was inappropriate for the courts below to use the first statement as an admission against respondent No. 2's claim

Respondent No.1 did not list the particulars of oral transaction in the plaint and as such did not independently prove the oral transaction

Evidence qua oral sale transaction of respondent No. 1 was not only beyond the scope of pleadings but was also discrepant and contradictory particularly with respect to details of oral transaction and receipt of earnest money by respondent No. 2

No stamp vendor was produced to prove the procurement of stamp papers for the alleged draft sale deed

No revenue official was produced with respect to denial of registration of first sale deed

Second sale deed was executed and registered and there was no explanation to the effect that if the same could be registered why draft sale deed in favour of Respondent No. I was declined

There was no evidence that alleged witnesses of the draft sale deed were also witnesses of oral transaction

No target date was alleged with respect to the oral sale transaction

No effort was made to deposit balance sale consideration in Court which admittedly had not been paid till the decision of the suit to demonstrate the readiness and willingness on part of respondent No.1 to perform his part of the oral contract and his financial ability to discharge his obligation

Respondent No.1 could not prove oral sale transaction

Overwhelming evidence was on record, whereby, Respondent No. 2 admitted to have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner after receiving entire sale consideration, therefore, there was no occasion not to give preference to a valid and lawfully registered subsequent sale deed over an unproved oral sale transaction

Petitioner as bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice was entitled to the protection accorded to him by S.41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and S.27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877

Judgments of courts below being result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record as well as misapplication of law could not sustain

Civil Revision was allowed accordingly.

2020 CLC 1406 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.53-AQanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 79 & 100Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 68 & 90 (since repealed)Sale deedBurden of proofDocument more than thirty years oldPresumption of truthScopeAdmission on behalf of one of the defendantsEffect

Contention of plaintiffs was that they had purchased suit property from the defendants through sale deeds whereas defendants had contended that alleged sale deeds were forged and fabricated

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Alleged sale deeds were scribed on 27-09-1962 having two marginal witnesses

One of the marginal witnesses of sale deeds had expired while other was alive but he was not examined on behalf of plaintiffs

Only one marginal witness was sufficient to prove the execution of alleged sale deeds under S.68 of Evidence Act, 1872

Inference could be drawn that had second witness of sale deeds been produced by the plaintiffs then he would not have deposed in their favour

Defendants had denied not only the execution of sale deeds but also receipt of sale consideration

Burden to prove the payment of sale consideration was on the plaintiffs but they had failed to discharge their onus

Mere producing a single witness under S.68 of Evidence Act, 1872 would not absolve the plaintiffs from proving the execution of deeds

Nothing was on record that when, where and in whose presence the sale consideration was paid to the defendants

Mere exhibition of sale deeds in absence of solid and tangible evidence was not sufficient to prove the contention of plaintiffs

Plaintiffs were bound to prove not only the contents of documents/deeds to be true but in addition to that payment of sale consideration which was lacking in the present case

Plaintiffs had failed to substantiate their claim and they were rightly non-suited

Mere thirty years age of document did not make it un-rebuttable or absolute proof

Such a document according to the facts and circumstances of the case was subject to proof

Nature and contents of alleged deeds in the present case were not sufficient to grant the prayer of the plaintiffs

Cognovit submitted on behalf of one of the defendants was not helpful for the plaintiffs as execution of sale deeds had been denied by the defendants

Even statement of said defendant could be considered as corroborative piece of evidence and not conclusive

Defendant who had admitted the claim of plaintiffs could have alienated his own share in the suit property in favour of plaintiffs

No possession of suit property as per alleged sale deeds had been delivered to the plaintiffs

Plaintiffs were in possession on the suit land being tenant

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence or illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 CLC 1039 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 54Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 60Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. VI, R. 2 & O. VIII, R. 2Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)Sale deedFraud and misrepresentationDocument, proof ofRequirementsMaxim: Secundum allegata et probata, principle ofApplicabilityRegistered instrumentPresumption of correctnessAppreciation of evidenceRequirementsAdmission against factEffectContention of plaintiff was that impugned sale deed in favour of defendant was based on fraud and misrepresentationSuit was dismissed concurrentlyValidity

Written statement was silent with regard to essential details qua venue, date and names of witnesses to assert as to when, where and before whom original transaction was settled leading to execution of impugned sale deed

Plaintiff while appearing in the witness box had fully endorsed his pleadings

Onus had shifted upon the beneficiary of sale deed not only to rebut the allegations raised by the adversary but to prove that actually a fair deal of sale was effected and alleged consideration had been paid and plaintiff had voluntarily appeared before Stamp Vendor, Scribe and Sub-Registrar as well

Plaintiff had admitted that his signatures/thumb impressions were procured but with clarity that same were obtained in garb of his affidavit to be submitted for his treatment and admission in the hospital

Defendant being beneficiary was bound to prove the contents of document on which the executant had admitted his signature

Mere admission of putting thumb impression or signatures by any person on some disputed instrument without proving the content thereof would not amount to proving its execution

Whenever execution or validity of a registered document had been denied then such instrument would lose its sanctity of being presumed to be correct rather veracity of registered document would depend upon quantum and quality of evidence to be produced to prove its execution

Only restricted presumption under S.60 of Registration Act, 1908 was attached that registration proceedings had regularly and honestly been carried out by the attesting officer

Said presumption attached to certificate of the document was always rebuttable

Whenever execution of an instrument had been denied then presumption would be deduced to have been sufficiently rebutted and onus would lie upon the person who had alleged execution to prove that the document was executed/registered for the transaction effected between the parties

Presumption in favour of a registered instrument did not dispense with the necessity of showing that person who had admitted the execution before the attesting officer was not an imposter but the genuine one

Possession of suit property had never been handed over to the defendant

Payment of sale consideration followed by delivery of possession was mandatory for sale transaction

Mere registration of sale deed without payment of sale consideration and delivery of possession would not be operative to pass title to the vendee

Neither Lumberdar nor Councilor of concerned revenue estate was accompanying at the time of attestation of impugned sale deed rather Lumberdar of city had identified the vendor which had created doubt to the attestation of sale deed

Identifier, Stamp Vendor and Sub-Registrar were independent witnesses but they had not been produced before the trial Court

Non-production of said witnesses would constrain the Court to infer that had they been examined they would have gone hostile to the beneficiary

Court should appreciate the statement of a party as per its substance and pith

No one should be non-suited while turning out one or two sentences of his deposition

Admission which was wrong on a point of fact or was made in ignorance of a legal right could not be given binding effect

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and suit was decreed

Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2020 YLR 722 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 42Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 127 & 129 (g)Suit for declarationFraudLimitationSale deedProof ofHearsay evidenceTransaction with Pardanasheen ladyProtection

Contention of plaintiff was that impugned sale deed was a fraudulent document and owner lady had not sold the suit property in favour of defendant

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Defendant was bound to prove the execution and genuineness of impugned sale deed

Defendant did not appear in the witness box and only his attorney got recorded his statement

Evidence of defendant was hearsay as his attorney was not present at the time of execution of sale deed

Hearsay evidence was not admissible under the law

Defendant had not examined any attesting witness of sale deed which was required in the eye of law

Even Sub-Registrar or any other concerned official had not been produced to prove the execution of impugned sale deed

Defendant had failed to prove the execution of impugned sale deed, in circumstances

Plaintiff was illiterate lady who had denied the execution of sale deed

Protection had been provided to the illiterate and Pardanasheen ladies

Period of limitation to challenge a fraudulent transaction would run from the date of its knowledge

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 CLCN 49 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 11Suit for declarationTransaction on behalf of minorEffectSale deedProof ofProcedureContention of plaintiff was that he was minor at the time of sale deedSuit was decreed concurrentlyValidity

When executant of sale deed had appeared in the witness-box and deposed that he was minor at the time of its execution then beneficiary of the sale deed was bound not only to prove the bargain but also payment of sale consideration

Executant of sale deed was minor at the time of its execution

Mere oral assertion was not sufficient to rebut the documentary material

Impugned transaction was void ab initio as plaintiff was minor at the time of its completion

When any document was based on fraud then same could be assailed at any time

Every fresh entry in the record-of-rights did give fresh cause of action

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras. 4, 6 & 7 of the judgment]

2018 YLRN 36 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S.42Suit for declarationSale deedTransaction was made from khewat "No. 71" but inadvertently same was written as khewat "No. 70"

Courts below had rightly concurred that transaction was made pertaining to khewat "No. 71" measuring two kanals and sale deed was legally revoked to the extent of land measuring one kanal and four marlas (Khewat No.70)

No illegality or infirmity had been committed by the Courts below

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 CLCN 229 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Art. 79Sale deedPower of attorneyTransfer of property by the attorney to his kith and kin without prior permission of principalScopeDocumentProof ofProcedureContention of plaintiff was that she did not give power or possession to the attorney to alienate the suit property

Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but first Appellate Court decreed the same and High Court restored the judgment of Trial Court

Validity

When document which went to the roots of the controversy was not proved to be a valid then whole structure built on that document would automatically fall

For proving the execution of a document it was essential that two attesting witnesses of the same appeared before the Court and stated that document was executed by the executant in their presence and executant had signed the said document in their presence and they identified the signatures

Only one marginal witness of power of attorney had appeared before the Court in the present case

Contents of power of attorney were not proved through cogent and reliable evidence in circumstances

Beneficiary i.e. attorney had not himself appeared in the witness box to prove the document on the strength of which whole transaction was made

Two attesting witnesses of the deed should have been produced to prove the same

Power of attorney had rightly been declared to have not been proved by the first Appellate Court

Attorney had exercised power to alienate property without prior permission of the principal

Agent on the strength of power of attorney could not transfer the land to his kith and kin without prior permission of principal

Transfer of land on the basis of power of attorney without prior permission of principal was illegal in circumstances

No validity could be given to the sale deed which was executed on the strength of power of attorney whose execution was not proved in accordance with law

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court were set aside and judgment and decree of first Appellate Court were restored

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2017 YLRN 25 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 8Suit for possessionSale deedBurden of proofScope

If transaction was alleged on behalf of a person and he appeared as his own witness and made a statement on oath then onus to prove the execution of said transaction would shift on its beneficiary

Registered sale deed had been executed by the father of plaintiff who remained alive for 10 years after its execution but did not challenge the same in his life time

Plaintiff being a third person had challenged the impugned sale deed

Principle of shifting of onus of proof would not apply in the present case

Defendant had proved the execution of sale deed by producing available witnesses of the same

Presumption was attached with the registered sale deed which was rebutable but plaintiff had failed to rebut the same

Sale deed had been validly executed in favour of defendant

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 CLCN 120 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 23, 34, 35, 58 & 59Sale deedExecution ofScope

Sale deed was written on 26.02.2007 and submitted before the Sub-Registrar and local commission was appointed on the same day for the purpose of execution of the same

Sub-Registrar refused to register the said sale deed on the ground that same was not submitted within prescribed period of four months

Validity

All the formalities stood complied with when parties executed sale deed before the local commission on 27-2-2007

Presentation of sale deed in question before the Sub-Registrar was just a ministerial act to which the rigors of S. 23 of Registration Act, 1908 did not apply

Said sale deed was filed with delay by the local commission for which petitioner could not be penalized

Impugned order passed by the Sub-Registrar was set aside

Sub-Registrar was directed to accept and entertain the sale deed

Process for registration of sale deed should be completed within a period of one week

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2017 CLC 1090 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 75, 76, 78, 103 & 129(g)Document, proof ofProcedureSale deedSecondary evidence, production ofConditionsContention of plaintiff was that he was owner of suit propertySuit was dismissed concurrentlyValidityNeither original sale deed nor its certified copy was produced by the plaintiff in his evidenceSale deed did not show the description of suit property nor its sale considerationNeither independent witness nor official witness was examined to prove the said sale deedRule of evidence did not fetter the powers of Court to unveil the real transaction

Admissibility of document was to be distinguished from proof required for determining the execution and genuineness of the same

Registered sale deed by itself without proof would not confer any right

If neither original sale deed was produced nor permission was obtained for production of secondary evidence or any witness was examined then sale deed was not proved

No steps were taken to prove the contents of sale deed by leading primary or secondary evidence

Said document could not be taken into consideration

Mere tendering a document in evidence would have no evidentiary value unless its contents were proved according to law

Court was competent to look into the document and to command upon its true nature or otherwise

Non-production of witness to prove document was fatal to the case of the party with the legal consequence that the recitals of document could not be said to have been proved

Simply because no objection was raised to the production of document would not render the same as proved

Presumption of truth was attached to registered document but if its contents were challenged, the onus would shift on the beneficiary to prove the same by examining attesting witnesses

Evidentiary value of certified copy of sale deed without seeking prior permission from the Court would lose its importance

Copy of said document would not be sufficient to prove the same

No presumption of correctness could be attached to the certified copy of sale deed which was not admissible in evidence as condition precedent to the admission of secondary evidence had not been fulfilled

Beneficiary of sale deed was bound to examine marginal witnesses, identifier and Sub-Registrar was to prove valid execution of disputed sale deed

Beneficiary would not succeed to prove his case in absence of such evidence

Where execution of registered document was disputed, no presumption of truth would attach to said document and its valid execution had to be proved

If best evidence was withheld by the beneficiary inference had to be drawn against him

Entire case of plaintiff was based upon sale deed but he neither pleaded the same in his plaint nor produced it with his plaint or claimed any specific relief on the footing of said sale deed

Evidence on non-pleaded case could not be looked into and should be ignored

Alleged sale deed had not been proved in circumstances

No illegality or irregularity had been committed by the courts below

Both the courts below had exercised jurisdiction vested in them on sound reasons which was neither perverse nor arbitrary for inequitable

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 MLD 1719 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 42Suit for declarationSale deedScope

Contention of plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of suit property and alleged sale deed was fake, bogus and ineffective upon his rights

Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but same was dismissed by the Appellate Court

Validity

Suit land was in possession of plaintiff and both the parties were inter se brothers

Nothing was on record that plaintiff was cultivating the suit property as tenant of defendant

Alleged transaction was carried out against the ordinary course of business and shrouded in suspicion and lack of transparency

Defendant had not proved the payment of sale consideration to his father

Sale deed was doubtful and could not be relied upon in favour of defendant

Appellate Court had not properly analyzed the evidence on record

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and those of Trial Court were restored and suit was decreed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2016 CLCN 41 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 27Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.79Suit for declarationSale deedBona fide purchaserBurden of proofPlaintiff filed suit seeking declaration of her titleContention of defendant was that he was bona fide purchaserSuit was dismissed by the Trial Court but the same was decreed by the Appellate CourtValidityAttesting witnesses of transfer deed were alive but they were not produced in the witness boxNo reason was shown to withhold said witnessesFailure to produce attesting witnesses of the document rendered the same inadmissible in evidenceDefendant had failed to prove the consideration and was not in a better position to further transfer the suit land

Revision was dismissed.

2016 YLR 1233 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 129 (g) & 78Suit for declarationLimitationSale deedProofNon-appearance of plaintiff in witness boxEffect

Contention of plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of suit land and sale deed in favour of defendant was illegal, void and was result of fraud and misrepresenta-tion

Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court

Validity

Defendant being beneficiary of sale deed had failed to produce the scribe, identifier, Sub-Registrar and one of the marginal witnesses of the same before the Trial Court to prove the valid execution of sale deed

Best evidence had been withheld by the defendant without any justification

Inference under Art. 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 had to be drawn against the defendant

Solitary statement of one marginal witness of sale deed was not sufficient to prove its valid execution

Beneficiary could not succeed to prove his case as pleaded in the written statement in absence of such best evidence

No presumption of truth would attach to the registered document the execution of which had been disputed

Execution of such document had to be proved by production of relevant evidence

Defendant being beneficiary was bound to prove that executant had validly sold out the suit property in terms of disputed sale deed after receiving the entire sale consideration and possession of suit land was delivered to him in pursuance thereof

Defendant being beneficiary should have produced the witnesses in whose presence the bargain of sale was struck and price was paid to the vendor

If payment or the consideration of the alleged sale had not been proved on record, there could be no sale in the eye of law

Whenever any instrument/deed/ document was challenged, the burden would lie on its beneficiary to prove the same as well as original transaction embodied in the said document which he was required to fall back upon

Beneficiary had failed to prove the sale transaction alleged to have been effected between the parties

Plaintiff was an illiterate person and there was no evidence on record that he was aware of the contents of sale deed when he had put his thumb impression thereon

Mere admission of putting thumb impression on the instrument would not amount to prove its execution

Non-appearance of plaintiff in the witness box was not fatal as defendant had failed to prove valid execution of sale deed as well as settlement of transaction by production of relevant witnesses

No limitation would run against fraud

Every new entry in the revenue record on the basis of a forged document would create a fresh cause of action

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and that of Trial Court were restored

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

2016 MLD 1761 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 39Suit for declarationMaintainabilitySale deedPower of attorneyPlaintiffs challenged the transaction of sale and power of attorney in favour of defendantsSuit was decreed by the Trial Court but same was dismissed by the Appellate CourtValidityPlaintiffs had filed suit after 15 years of transactionVendor had never challenged or disputed the impugned sale deed in favour of defendantsImpugned transaction had been made through registered sale deed or power of attorney

Suit should have been filed under S. 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 for cancellation of documents and not for declaration

Decree for declaration could be granted for a pre-existing right and no new right could be created through a declaratory decree

Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were in accordance with the evidence available on the file and law

No infirmity or illegality had been pointed out in the findings recorded by the Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 YLR 760 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Gift deedInheritanceLimitationSale deedSubsequent transactionScopeBoth plaintiffs and defendants instituted suits against each other

Contention of plaintiffs was that they were owners of suit property and gift deed in favour of defendants was fictitious

Suit of plaintiffs was dismissed whereas that of defendants was decreed

Validity

Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property

Gift deed in favour of defendants was without delivery of possession

Subsequent transaction could never be preferred over the existing one

Suit of defendants was time barred

Both the courts below had committed mis-reading and non-reading of evidence while dismissing suit of plaintiffs

Impugned gift deed was liable to be cancelled to the extent of property owned by the plaintiffs

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside

Suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed whereas that of defendants was dismissed and mutation in favour of plaintiffs was restored

Appeal was allowed.

2013 YLR 1952 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42, 54 & 55Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss.17 & 49Suit for declarationSale deedBurden of proof

Contentions of plaintiff were that predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was her real sister who sold the suit property to her for sale consideration of Rs. 21,000 vide unregistered sale deed and the possession was delivered to her and defendants had no right to get attested inheritance mutation in their favour

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiff being beneficiary of the unregistered sale deed was duty bound to prove such deed beyond any doubt with cogent and conclusive oral and documentary evidence

Perusal of evidence produced by the plaintiff showed that she had failed to discharge her burden through cogent, conclusive and trustworthy oral or documentary evidence

Nothing was available on record to show that the plaintiff was entered in the revenue record as owner in possession of the suit property through sale and according to fard jamabandi the name of the plaintiff-petitioner was recorded as co-sharer in the suit property and as per Khasra girdawari there was no entry of un-registered deed which revealed that she was not in possession of suit property as exclusive owner

Sister of the plaintiff while appearing in the witness box stated in her cross-examination that her sister had not transferred her share through mutation or any other way to any of her sisters and she was marginal witness of the unregistered deed and stated that she had thumb-impressed the said deed herself and in her presence, her sister and two other male witnesses had thumb-impressed the same

Said witness in her cross-examination deposed that no male witness had impressed his thumb-mark over the unregistered sale deed; that her sister was born in the year, 1947 and deed was executed in the year, 1962 and at that time the age of her sister was 14/15 years

Sale deed exceeding sale consideration of 99 rupees was compulsorily registerable under S.17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and if the same was unregistered then same did not confer any right upon the person in whose favour it was executed under S.49 of the said Act

In view of non-compliance of provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 that deed was neither admissible in evidence nor had got any evidentiary value, both the courts below after appreciation of evidence on record had rightly non-suited the plaintiff

Revision was dismissed in limine.

2011 MLD 1300 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.54Sale deedArea of land mentioned in sale-deed and its calculation on basis of measurement of boundaries being differentEffect

When land was sold with definite boundaries, then boundaries would prevail, unless it was clear from circumstances surrounding sale that a smaller extent that was covered by boundaries was intended to be sold.

2010 SCMR 1871 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Registered sale deed prior in time must be given due weight over later sale deed.