Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 1596 2013 SLD 1596 2013 SCMR 877
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.2018 of 2011, decision dated: 18-03-2013. (On appeal against the judgment dated 28-9-2011 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in C.R. No.986-D of 2011.)
NASIR-UL-MULK, AMIR HANI MUSLIM AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JJ
Malik M. Latif Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.

TARIQ MAHMOOD-

VS

GHULAM MUSTAFA SHAH and another

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---Ss. 42 & 8---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Suit for declaration---Sale of immovable property by virtue of sale deed---Bona fide---Proof---Purported vendee unable to show his possession over immovable property---Payment of sale consideration not established---Effect---Plaintiff and other co-sharers of suit property allegedly executed a general power-of-attorney in favour of the defendant to dispose of their immovable property---Defendant in exercise of said power-of-attorney sold suit property to the purported vendee by executing a sale deed---Plaintiff filed a declaratory suit challenging validity of the power-of-attorney and contended that it was never executed, therefore, defendant fraudulently sold the property to the purported vendee---Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff---Appeal filed by purported vendee against of Trial Court was dismissed and revision petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed by High Court---Plea on behalf of purported vendee was that the declaratory suit filed by plaintiff against the defendant was collusive and both of them were in league throughout, and that the decree passed in the suit was obtained by fraud depriving the purported vendee from the suit property, which he had acquired as a bona fide purchaser without notice---Validity---Admittedly purported vendee was never put in possession of suit property, which he claimed to have purchased from the defendant by virtue of a sale deed---Purported vendee should have filed a separate suit for possession against the plaintiff and defendant, but he had not done the same---Purported vendee could not explain as to why he was not put in possession of suit property despite claiming to have paid the entire sale consideration---Purported vendee also failed to prove the payment of sale consideration of suit property to establish his bona fide---Findings of Trial Court and High Court were correct---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances. ORDER AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Through these proceedings the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in Civil…
🔒
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