Immoveable property

Well-established principle of Muslim Law is that a de facto guardian of a minor has no power to transfer any right to or interest in the immovable property of the minor

Even the principle of estoppel is inapplicable in the case of a minor.

In the present case the appellant/vendor, not only admitted the execution of the sale deed but also admitted the payment of sale consideration; he also admitted that the possession of the suit property had also been delivered in consequence of the sale transaction

Un-registered sale deed could be given preference over the registered one when on the basis of un-registered sale deed possession of the property had also been given

Where a person in favour of whom an un-registered deed qua transfer of certain rights in property had been executed, also had possession of the property, he could legally protect his rights in the property and even a registered deed subsequent in time would not affect his/her rights

First proviso to section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 provided that such rights in the property could be protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

When pursuant to the un-registered sale deed, the respondents were put in possession of the suit land in the year 1971, a vested right had been created in their favour, which could not be taken away merely on the basis of technicalities

Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents was rightly decreed

Appeal was dismissed.

Dower deed was a document not creating / extinguishing right in immovable property and execution of such document thereto only acknowledged the factum of transfer of immovable property in favour of his wife in lieu of dower.

Assignment, in cases relating to immoveable property, took place when one party to an existing contract conveyed all the obligations, rights and interest under the agreement to another person

In such an eventuality, the assignee stepped into the shoes of the assignor and assumed all the contractual rights and obligations flowing therefrom.

Supreme Court observed that it was common usage and custom in real estate, construction and building contract that at, or before the execution of sublease, investors booked the apartments/shops in advance and sold, or transacted, forward sale multiple times, before the final sublease was executed; that traditionally, such type of transaction was evidenced by tripartite arrangement by and between the allottee, forward purchaser, and the builder; that in Pakistan, such contracts and arrangements were not regulated, therefore it was high time that the real estate business was regulated, to secure rights and interests of builders, allottees and forward transferees alike

Appeals were allowed with said observations.

Title in immovable property could not be claimed merely on the basis of an agreement.

Although a registered deed reflecting transfer of certain rights qua a property had sanctity attached to it regarding its genuineness, and strong evidence was required to cast aspersions on its correctness but it could not be given preference over an un-registered deed vide which physical possession of the property had also been given

Section 50(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 also provided that a registered document regarding transfer of certain rights in an immovable property would have effect against every un-registered document relating to the same property and conferring the same rights in the property as shown in the registered document but the law had also provided certain exceptions

Where a person in favour of whom an un-registered deed qua transfer of certain rights in property had been executed, also had possession of the property, he could legally protect his rights in the property and even a registered deed subsequent in time would not affect his/her rights

First proviso to S. 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 provided that such rights in the property could be protected under S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Claimant/wife in whose favour property was transferred vide unregistered sale in lieu of dower was also given possession of the same

Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also confirmed the signatures of her husband/transferor on the said deed

Irrespective of the fact that the rival claimants/petitioners had a registered gift deed in their favour, the same was subsequent in time to the unregistered deed and petitioners had no possession of the property, thus, they could not get any advantage of the same

Besides, the petitioners had claimed the gift in their favour vide the registered deed but the basic ingredients of gift i.e. offer, acceptance and delivery of possession had not been proved by them

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Such an agreement would not confer any title upon the vendee in the immovable property.

Where a purchaser was aware of pending litigation (based on an agreement to sell) with respect to immoveable property, he should restrain himself from entering into a subsequent agreement with the vendor

In the event that such purchaser did enter into a subsequent agreement for the immoveable property he could not be termed as bona fide purchaser.

Description of house/immoveable property was not mentioned in the Nikahnama, which fact was not fatal to the claim of the petitioner/wife

Revenue Authorities were directed to inquire about the market value of the house owned by husband at the time of marriage and husband was directed to pay the amount evaluated by Revenue Authorities to wife

Constitutional petition was allowed.