Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 197 2023 SLD 197 2023 CLC 252
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.86 of 2017, decided on 7th December,2021. Date of hearing: 7th December, 2021
SHAHID KARIM AND RASAAL HASAN SYED, JJ
Shahzad Mahmood Butt for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Asif Awan for
Respondent No.1. Mirza Anees Baig for
Respondent No.2. Hafiz Naimat Ullah for
Respondents Nos.3 and 4.

Mst. ERUM LATIF ---Plaintiff

VS

IMTIAZ KHAN and others----Defendants

Law: Registration Act, 1908

Section: 17

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12,39,42,54

(a) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)--- ----S.17---Registration of document---Principle---When document creates an interest in property, such document requires compulsory registration. Bank of Oman Limited through Attorney v. M.Y. Malik, Co. and 2 others 2004 CLD 490 and Messrs Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd v. Messers Usman Sons Ltd. and others PLD 1969 Kar. 123 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Title passing of---Pre-condition---Such suit if decreed, passes no title to decree holder till such time that a registered sale deed is executed in implementation of decree. Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 1975 Lah. 909 rel. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.39, 42, 54---Suit for cancellation of document, declaration and injunction---Limitation---Fraud, knowledge of---Proof---Appellant / plaintiff sought cancellation of registered sale deed executed in favour of respondent / defendant on the plea that it was not executed by her mother and was a result of fraud---Suit was filed 23 years after registration of sale deed and that too after the death of mother of appellant / plaintiff---Validity---Mother of appellant / plaintiff sold the property during her lifetime, number of alienations took place thereafter which she never challenged despite having knowledge of the transactions---Mother of appellant / plaintiff was fully conscious that property was lawfully sold by her in favour of respondent / defendant who subsequently lawfully sold it in favour of other buyers thereafter---Appellant / plaintiff as an heir had no locus standi to file the suit as transactions and documents were not challenged by her mother during lifetime---Suit instituted after 23 years was time barred and that the yarn spun by appellant / plaintiff to lay explanation for late institution was proved to be false---Trial Court analyzed the evidence in proper perspective---High Court declined to interfere in and decree passed by Trial Court as findings recorded did not suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence or from any error of law or jurisdiction---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Abdul Haq and…
🔒
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