| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 365 2004 SLD 365 2004 SCMR 530 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 1995, decided on 19th November, 2003. (On appeal from the judgment dated 7-7-1994 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in C.R. No. 199-D of 1980/BWP)
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND RANA BHAGWANDAS, JJ
Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. M. Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent Remaining
Respondents. Ex parte
Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 1995, decided on 19th November, 2003. (On appeal from the judgment dated 7-7-1994 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in C.R. No. 199-D of 1980/BWP)
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND RANA BHAGWANDAS, JJ
Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. M. Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent Remaining
Respondents. Ex parte
MUSHTAQ AHMAD and others
VS
MUHAMMAD SAEED and others
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Law: Registration Act, 1908
Section: 48
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VIII,R.2
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ---Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether subject-matter of dispute was an award or agreement of sale. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.48---Specific. performance of agreement to sell---Principle of---Preference of registered document over oral agreement--- Applicability ---Possession of suit-land was handed over to plaintiff in execution of oral agreement of sale--Subsequently the owner of the suit-land executed registered sale-deed in favour of defendants on the basis of another agreement of sale in their favour---Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff---Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were maintained by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction---Plea raised by the defendants was that the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff was unregistered document which could , not be termed as agreement of sale, while the agreement in their favour was a registered document, therefore, the document in favour of the plaintiff could not be enforced---Validity---Appellate Court and High Court, after taking into consideration the terms of the document in favour of the plaintiff and the evidence produced by the parties, recorded a finding of fact that it was an agreement of sale, therefore, the same could be enforced as such to seek specific performance thereof ---Vendee under unregistered document or agreement was delivered possession, the principle that registered document would take preference over unregistered document would not be applicable in view of S.48 of Registration Act, 1908--Defendants, in their written statement had admitted that possession of the land had been delivered to the plaintiff under the agreement of sale, therefore, no benefit could be claimed under S.48 of Registration Act, 1908, on the ground that agreement in favour of the defendants was a registered document---Execution of sale-deed in favour of defendants by the owner, after execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492