| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 897 2012 SLD 897 2012 YLR 521 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 997 of 2006, decision & hearing Dated: 23-12-2010.
SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Samad Khan Zaid and Sh. Muhammad Zahir Shah
Respondent(s) by: Abdul Sattar Khan
Civil Revision No. 997 of 2006, decision & hearing Dated: 23-12-2010.
SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Samad Khan Zaid and Sh. Muhammad Zahir Shah
Respondent(s) by: Abdul Sattar Khan
MUHAMMAD ALAM AND OTHERS
VS
QALAM BADSHAH AND OTHERS
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VI,XXII,R.1,3,11
Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)
Section: 39
Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section: 54
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction on the basis of alleged sale transaction entered between the parties, without mentioning any date and year---Validity---No declaration could be sought in like circumstances---Form of the suit was not in accordance with law and in absence of any detail regarding the date of sale, sale consideration and without giving other particulars of sale in pleadings, even if the allegations were proved, the decree could not be passed in favour of the plaintiffs---Whenever, the plaintiff would seek the decree for declaration of his title in the immovable property, he was under legal duty to prefer his claim on the basis of a valid title-deed---In absence thereof, no decree could be passed declaring plaintiffs as owners of the property---Plaintiffs, had not filed any title-deed in support of their claim against the defendants, but also failed to mention the date of sale transaction, which was sine qua non for a valid sale---Both the courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that no sale transaction was effected between the parties and no sale consideration was paid by the plaintiffs---No cogent, convincing and confidence inspiring evidence was produced by the plaintiffs in order to substantiate their claim of possession under the alleged sale transaction as claimed vide rejected sale mutation, coupled with the entries made in Roznamcha Waqiati---Findings rendered by both the courts and decrees, not suffering from any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error, were maintained, in circumstances. PLD 1968 SC 140; PLD 1969 SC 136; Mst. Maqbool Begum and others v. Ghulan and others PLD 1982 SC 46; PLD 1987 Lah. 387; PLD 1964 SC 559 and Sikandar and others v. Sherbaz through L.Rs. 2007 SCMR 1802 ref. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 54---Valid 'sale' transaction---Essential elements---Valid sale transaction would be constituted when essential elements would be proved by the vendee---Said essential elements were availability/ presence of valid sale agreement; the parties to the sale transaction; the sale consideration, fixed and paid and the…
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