Case Details

Citation(s)
1972 SLG 239 1972 SLD 239 1972 SCMR 415
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leaves to Appeal No. 143 of 1972, decision dated: 25th October 1972
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J. AND ANWARUL HAQ, J
S. M. Akhtar Mir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wali Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners. Ch. Khalil-ur-Rahman, Advocate-on-Record Supreme Court for
Respondents.

KHAIRATI AND others

VS

ALEEMUDDIN AND another--Respondents

Law:

Section:

(a) Settlement Scheme No. I, para. 37-Provisional Transfer Order holder may lease out or mortgage property to any person subject to such condition as may be laid down by Chief Settlement Commissioner-Pending issuance of a permanent transfer deed, however, property cannot be alienated in any other manner. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)-Special leave to appeal-Question raised before and decided by trial Court not 'taken up before first appellate Court-Not allowed to be raised at stage of special leave for appeal. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The dispute in this case relates to an evacuee property situated at Dera Ghazi Khan. It was transferred to one Dinu in January 1960. Thereafter, the said Dinu, on the 8th of December 1960, executed a deed described as a mortgage deed for Rs. 5,578. In this deed, there was a recital to the effect that Dinu had realised the full consideration for the property and that he would get the sale deed executed and registered on getting full rights. It was further stipulated that, if the mortgagor did not get the house redeemed within a period of four years, the mortgagee would become full owner. Dinu, unfortunately, died on the 4th of November 1962, before the P. T.' D. could be issued in his favour. The P. T. D. was subsequently issued in his name on the 5th December 1962. The respondents-mortgagees thereupon, on the 13th of May 1968, filed a suit for specific performance against the heirs of Dinu, and alternatively prayed that if it was found that title had not passed to them, then a mortgage decree for Rs. 12,500 should be passed in their favour. The suit was, ' however, valued only for the amount shown in the deed as the mortgage money. The defendants, who are the heirs of Dinu and now the petitioners, contested the suit. They denied that the deed was a deed of sale out and out but admitted that it was a mortgage and, therefore, claimed that they were entitled 'to redeem the mortgage notwithstanding that, according to the condition of the deed, redemption was to be barred after four years., This clause was, according to the petitioners, illegal as a clog on the equity of redemption. They further maintained that…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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