| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1399 2023 SLD 1399 2023 SCMR 1032 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 32-K of 2018, decided on 20th October,2022. Date of hearing: 20th October, 2022. (Against thejudgment of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi Dated31.05.2018 passed in Second Appeal No.46 of 2006)
Present: Ijaz ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Muhammad Ali Lari, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record (via video link from Karachi) for Appellant. Muhammad Safdar, Advocate Supreme Court along with Mian Abdul Rauf, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 32-K of 2018, decided on 20th October,2022. Date of hearing: 20th October, 2022. (Against thejudgment of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi Dated31.05.2018 passed in Second Appeal No.46 of 2006)
Present: Ijaz ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Muhammad Ali Lari, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record (via video link from Karachi) for Appellant. Muhammad Safdar, Advocate Supreme Court along with Mian Abdul Rauf, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD AQIL-----AppellantVersusMUHAMMAD AMIR and others-----Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immoveable property (suit property)---Minor having share in the suit property---In the absence of any evidence to indicate that the adult co-sharer was ever made the guardian of the minor co-sharer, the minor's share could not be sold by a de facto guardian---Suit for specific performance of the sale agreement could not be decreed to the extent of such minor's share in the suit property. In his plaint, the appellant (vendee) had admitted that he was aware that one of the vendors was a minor girl at the time the sale agreement was drawn up; that the other vendor "A", who was the brother of the minor, failed to produce the guardianship certificate with respect to the minor, and that "A" failed to honour their promise to produce the guardianship certificate and permission for completion of selling her share in spite of receipt of the sale consideration and delivery of possession. There was also nothing on the record to suggest that the said guardianship certificate, if it at all existed, or any specific order from any Court authorising the sale of minor's share in the suit house was ever brought on record by either of the parties before the Trial Court. High Court rightly relied on the principle that a minor's share could not be sold by a de facto guardian when it dismissed the suit of the appellant to the extent of minor. In the absence of any evidence on the record to indicate that "A" was ever made the guardian of the minor by virtue of a guardianship certificate or an order from a Court authorising the sale of minor's share in the suit house, High Court rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant to the extent of the minor. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, "A" was, at the time of the sale agreement, the de facto guardian of the minor and was barred from selling her share in the suit house in the absence of a guardianship certificate or an express order from a Court of competent jurisdiction. Appeal was dismissed. Mt. Auto v. Mt. Reoti Kaur AIR 1936 All 837 and Muhammad Haneef v. Abdul Samad PLD 2009 SC 751 ref. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of…
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