Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 536 2011 SLD 536 2011 CLC 186
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 186 of 2003, decision dated: 11-10-2010
ZIA-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

SULTAN AHMAD and others

VS

LATIF AHMAD and others

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 41

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 41

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 54,42

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41---Declaration of title---Ostensible owner---Proof---Right / title of vendee is dependent upon the strength or weakness of title of seller, who cannot confer better title than he himself holds---Purchaser in order to invoke provisions of section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, must prove his bona fide purchase through convincing evidence that his transferor was ostensible owner. Muhammad Shamim through Legal Heires v. Mst. Nisar Fatma 2010 SCMR 18 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 129 (e)---West Pakistan Land Revenue. Act (XVII of 1967), S.42---Entries in revenue record---Presumption---Once entries of revenue record are held and declared to be based upon no legal title, the same cannot be treated as sacrosanct because such-like entries must be product of some unlawful ownership. Misri v. Muhammad Sharif 1997 SCMR 338 rel. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Declaration of title---Co-owners---Limitation---Concurrent findings of fact by two Courts 'below-Plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit land and sought rectification of revenue record---Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court decided the matter in favour of plaintiffs---Plea raised by defendants was that suit filed by plaintiffs was barred by limitation---Validity---Plaintiffs were proved to be owners to the extent of 4/11 shares, therefore, they were co-owners in suit Kimura numbers with defendants and being so the :question of limitation was not attracted---Factum of any inaction or omission on the part of defendants was termed by the Courts below to be the result of their being minors at that time---Both the Courts below, after scanning and subjective examination of entire material available on the record had rightly admitted claim of plaintiffs by passing decree in their favour and did not commit any irregularity or illegality in recording the s---Judgments of lower courts were not vulnerable to any attack and exception---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Amir Gulab Khan for Petitioners. Muhammad Saeed Khan Shangla for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th October, 2010.…
🔒
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