| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1473 2018 SLD 1473 2018 YLR 1244 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeals Nos. 163 and 164 of 2017, decision Dated: 11-11-2018. Hearing Date : 14-12-2017. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court Dated 24.3.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1999).
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Raja M. Fayyaz Khan, Advocate for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2017). Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1 (in Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2017). Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2017
Civil Appeals Nos. 163 and 164 of 2017, decision Dated: 11-11-2018. Hearing Date : 14-12-2017. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court Dated 24.3.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1999).
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Raja M. Fayyaz Khan, Advocate for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2017). Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1 (in Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2017). Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2017
MUHAMMAD AYUB AND 3 OTHERS
VS
ALI ZAFFAR AND 3 OTHERS
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12,42
Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section: 54
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VII,R.7
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 113
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.12 & 42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 113---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 7---Suit for declaration on the basis of agreement to sell---Limitation---Commencement of---Sale of immovable property---Grant of relief for specific performance---Scope---Contention of plaintiffs was that they had purchased the suit land through an agreement to sell---Validity---Execution of agreement to sell had been proved by the plaintiffs---Suit property was in the possession of plaintiffs on the basis of agreement to sell---Court was required to decide the case on the basis of pleadings of the parties and material brought on record---Limitation would start from the date when execution of deed was refused and not from the date of execution of agreement to sell---Plaintiffs in their suit had mentioned that the defendants had refused to accept their claim a week ago---Said version had not been refuted by the defendants by producing any evidence---Suit property remained continuously in possession of plaintiffs---Oral evidence could not be given preference over documentary evidence---Findings recorded by the Courts below were erroneous and against the record---Contract of sale of immovable property itself did not create any interest or right in the said property---Said contract could determine and settle the terms between the parties to such sale---Parties, in the present case, had settled the price of land, delivery of possession and execution of sale deed---Parties had performed the terms agreed with regard to payment of price and delivery of possession and execution of sale deed was to be carried out---Plaintiff might claim reliefs as many as possible, however, court had to grant such relief which was proved and admissible under the law---Where facts were fully stated, mere absence of any specific words of specific relief could not be made basis for refusing the relief---Execution of agreement to sell and delivery of possession had been proved in the present case---Only act required to be performed for completion of sale of suit property was registration of sale…
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