Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 158 2014 SLD 158 2014 SCMR 1059
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos.977 and 978 of 2006, decision dated: 17-12-2013
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, AMIR HANI MUSLIM AND EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JJ
Mian Allah Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents

SHAHZADA MUHAMMAD ASLAM

VS

SOOFI WALI MUHAMMAD and others

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 12(2)

(a) Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957) [since repealed]--- ----Ss. 20 & 21---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Evacuee property exchanged with local Muslim---Change in status of property from evacuee to non-evacuee--- Confirmation by Custodian, requirement of---Subject shop was initially owned by a non-Muslim---Plaintiff, who was a Muslim, exchanged his original shop with the subject shop by way of a registered exchange deed---After such exchange revenue authorities changed status of subject shop to non-evacuee property---Plaintiff and his step-mother/defendant entered into litigation in relation to subject shop, whereafter both parties entered into a compromise agreement by which plaintiff was declared the exclusive owner and suit was decreed as such---During pendency of such suit defendant, in defiance of the terms of the decree, filed an application for transfer of subject shop to her under a scheme, which was accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, and subject shop was transferred in the name of defendant---Defendant consequently entered into an agreement to sell the subject shop to the purported buyer---Revenue authorities in the mean-time set aside order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, whereby subject shop was transferred to the defendant---Purported buyer filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell with the defendant and also filed an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. against plaintiff alleging fraud and mis-representation---Held, since the date of exchange, plaintiff remained in possession of the subject shop and presently his successors/appellants were in its possession---Defendant never denied the fact that she was a party to the suits which were decreed in terms of compromise agreement and plaintiff was declared exclusive owner of the subject shop, nor at any point of time she ever produced and/or placed any material on record to establish that she was in physical possession of the subject shop when she made an application to Deputy Settlement Commissioner for transferring the same to her under a scheme---Under the said scheme, any applicant who sought allotment of property had to…
🔒
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