| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 2583 2020 SLD 2583 2020 CLC 2024 |
Islamabad High Court
Civil Revision No.42 of 2017, decided on 4th September, 202,Date of hearing: 20th August, 2020.
GHULAM AZAM QAMBRANI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Habib Ullah Khan for Petitioner. Khalid Pervaiz for
Respondent No.1. Malik Javaid Iqbal Wains for
Respondent No.2. Najam Hanif Sheikh for
Respondent No.3.
Civil Revision No.42 of 2017, decided on 4th September, 202,Date of hearing: 20th August, 2020.
GHULAM AZAM QAMBRANI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Habib Ullah Khan for Petitioner. Khalid Pervaiz for
Respondent No.1. Malik Javaid Iqbal Wains for
Respondent No.2. Najam Hanif Sheikh for
Respondent No.3.
PETITIONER(S): BAKHT BAIDAR
VS
RESPONDENT(S): GHULAM NABI AND 3 OTHERSS
Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section: 41
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12,22,27(b),54
(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S.41---Ostensible owner, transfer by---Equitable principle---Applicability---Pre-conditions---Essential ingredients for application of S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, are (a) the transferor was ostensible owner; (b) transfer was made by consent express or implied of the real owner; (c) transfer was for consideration; and transferee while acting in good faith had taken reasonable care before entering into the transaction---Such four imperative ingredients must co-exist in order for a person to take the benefit of equitable principle. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.12, 22, 27 (b) 54---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and permanent injunction---Discretionary relief, refusal of--- Bona fide purchase for valuable consideration without knowledge---Plaintiff claimed that owner of suit property despite executing agreement to sell in his favour and receiving full consideration amount, transferred the same in favour of defendant---Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed the suit and appeal filed by plaintiff---Validity---Record proved that defendant was bona fide purchaser of disputed plot without notice of any prior agreement to sell between plaintiff and the owner, therefore, provision of S.27(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1877, was not applicable---Grant of specific relief was discretionary in character and Court was not always bound to decree suit of specific performance in cases where agreement was proved---Court had to exercise discretion judicially and not arbitrarily---High Court declined to interfere in concurrent s and decrees passed by two Courts below---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Ghulam Rasool and others v. Noor Muhammad and others 2017 SCMR 81; Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Khan and 2 others 2002 SCMR 2003; Arif Shah v. Abdul Hakeem Qureshi PLD 1991 SC 905 and Sheikh Akhtar Aziz v. Mst. Shabnam Begum and others 2019 SCMR 524 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Concurrent findings of facts by Courts below---Scope---High Court does not normally go beyond concurrent findings of fact recorded by…
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