Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 855 2011 SLD 855 2011 PLD 161
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.81 of 2006, decision dated: 21st December, 2010. (On appeal from the judgment dated 27-7-2005 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan in C.R.No.462-D of 1996)
MAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI AND MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JJ
Ihsan ul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. M. Arif Raja, Advocate Supreme Court

NAZIR AHMAD and another

VS

YOUSAF

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 51

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 8

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 51---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.8---Suit for possession---Direction to defendants to remove superstructure raised on the suit plot---Application of S.51, Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Ingredients---Defendants though had shown some bank transaction qua the plaintiff but had not been able to establish, if the amount was credited to the latter and more so, if it was paid as a sale consideration pursuant to any sale transaction---No documentary evidence about the sale which could not be legally concluded except in accordance with S.54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and S.17, Registration Act, 1908 was available on record---No oral independent evidence had been led to establish the exact day, date, month, year, the venue as to when the sale transaction was allegedly negotiated and finalized between the parties and in whose presence---Factual findings of fact given by the three courts below did not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of the evidence---Provision of S.51, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not attracted to the case because in order to enforce the provision of S.51, a specific plea thereunder had to be taken in the written statement, an issue should be joined and evidence to that effect must be led---In the absence of said requisites being accomplished in the seriatim, no benefit could be attained under S.51, Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Application of S.51, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not a question of law simpliciter which could be agitated at any stage of the proceeding, rather the factual foundation within the parameters of S.51 had to be laid at the very inception of the case i.e. the pleadings of the parties so that the right conferred thereby could be legally enforced. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The suit for possession, filed by the respondents, was decreed on 25-9-1991 inasmuch as that the appellants were directed to remove the superstructure raised by them on the suit plot. The appeal of the appellants failed on 12-12-1995 and their revision was dismissed on 27-7-2005. All the three forums below have categorically held that the…
🔒
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