| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 734 2013 SLD 734 2013 CLC 754 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No.84 of 2009, decided 2-11-2012. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court, dated 15-5-2009, in Civil Appeal No.208 of 2006)
MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J. AND CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.84 of 2009, decided 2-11-2012. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court, dated 15-5-2009, in Civil Appeal No.208 of 2006)
MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J. AND CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
FAZAL DAD through L.Rs.
VS
ADNAN ALI and 8 others
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12,42
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12,42
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 96,100,O.I,R.10
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 12 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.96, 100 & O.I, R.10---Suit for declaration of title on basis of unregistered agreement to sell suit property---Intervenor being in possession of suit property impleaded as party in suit---Suit dismissed by Trial Court, but decreed by Appellate Court by passing decree of specific performance on basis of such agreement---Intervenor's plea in appeal was that plaintiff could not claim any right in suit property on basis of such agreement; and that in simple suit for declaration, decree for specific performance could not be passed---Dismissal of intervenor's appeal by High Court---Validity---Person having a right or interest in suit property or executants of such agreement could only challenge such agreement, and not a third person having no right or interest therein merely claiming to be in its possession---Person not having any right or interest in suit property could not maintain appeal against / decree---Legal heirs of defendant-vendor had not challenged such /decree, which had attained finality---Intervenor had no right to maintain appeal as no decree had been passed against him---High Court had rightly dismissed intervenor's appeal---Supreme Court dismissed intervenor's appeal in circumstances. Azad Government and 2 others v. Syed Muhammad Afzal Shah and another 2002 CLC 1165; Muhammad Yakoob v. Muhammad Ishaque 1980 CLC 2056; Feroz-ud-Din v. Muhammad Aziz and 22 others PLD 2005 HC (AJ&K) 9; Muhammad Nazar and 3 others v. Mst, Nasira Sultana and 5 others 1995 CLC 1745; Mardan Ali and others v. Rab Nawaz and others 1991 CLC 82 and Samar Gul v. Central Government and others PLD 1986 SC 35 ref. Chandrika Bakhsh Singh v. Indar Bikram Singh AIR 1916 PC 14; Mst. Rasheeda Begum through her L.Rs. v. Mst. Saeeda and others 1993 CLC 1263 and Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government v. Habibullah Lone PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 13 rel. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 54---Agreement to sell immovable property---Right of person in possession of property to challenge such agreement---Scope---Such person would have no right to challenge such agreement as its…
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