Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 431 2014 SLD 431 2014 MLD 536
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1002 of 2000, decision Dated: 2-04-2013,hearing Date : 28-01-2013.
NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE
Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioner.Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for
Respondents.

SARFRAZVSMUHAMMAD AKRAM THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S.53-A---Part performance, doctrine of---Un-registered agreement---Scope---Contention was that doctrine of part performance and protection of possession under unregistered agreement to sell is applicable only if there is unequivocal proof of existence of agreement to sell and delivery of subject property to vendee under the sale agreement---Such contention was sine qua non for claiming protection of possession under S. 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Agreement to sell musthave been capable of enforcement at the time when defence of doctrine of part performance was pleaded. Ali Rehman v. Fazal Mehmud and 8 others 2003 SCMR 327; Sardar Mahomed Tahir v. K.B.Mian Pirbux AIR 1932 Sindh 42; Raju Roy and others v. Kasinath Roy and others AIR 1956 Patna 308 and Messrs Saudi Arabian Airlines through Sales Manager, Lahore and another v. Miss Hira Khan and another 2002 CLC 204 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.8---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.53-A---Suit for recovery of possession---Part performance, doctrine of---Suit for recovery of possession on the basis of agreement to sell dated 10-07-1971, was decreed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit in favour of plaintiffs---Validity---Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs instituted suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10-07-1971 in his life time which was dismissed on the point of limitation and his appeal was also dismissed---Alleged agreement to sell dated 10-07-1971 was rendered incapable of specific performance and lost its all efficacy in the eye of law, if any---Agreement to sell did not have any other right created in favour of vendee except that of seeking relief of specific performance---Plaintiffs were not justified to claim protection of alleged illegal possession taken by them over subject property and that too under the agreement which did not specifically speak of delivery of possession to them and which agreement to sell was not specifically performed by Civil Courts and suit instituted by predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs was dismissed---High Court set aside and decree passed by…
🔒
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