| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1977 SLG 286 1977 SLD 286 (1977) 35 TAX 86 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal Nos. K-9 and K-10 of 1974, decision dated: 27-7-1976. [ on the 11-05-1973, in L. P. A. No. 36 and L. P. A. No. 38 of 1971. respectively.). dates of hearing: 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th of March 17
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, ANWARUL HAQ AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, JJ
Shah Jamil Alam, Senior Advocate, M. Bilal, Advocate and A. Aziz Dastagir, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 (in C.A.K.-9 of 1974) And for Appellants and
Respondents Nos. 28 to 33 (in C.A.K-10 of 1974,) Iqbal Kazi, Advocate and Noor Ahmed Noo
Civil Appeal Nos. K-9 and K-10 of 1974, decision dated: 27-7-1976. [ on the 11-05-1973, in L. P. A. No. 36 and L. P. A. No. 38 of 1971. respectively.). dates of hearing: 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th of March 17
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, ANWARUL HAQ AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, JJ
Shah Jamil Alam, Senior Advocate, M. Bilal, Advocate and A. Aziz Dastagir, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 (in C.A.K.-9 of 1974) And for Appellants and
Respondents Nos. 28 to 33 (in C.A.K-10 of 1974,) Iqbal Kazi, Advocate and Noor Ahmed Noo
MUHAMM AD ISHAQUE (Represented by legal heirs)
VS
EROSE THEATRE AND OTHERS
Law: Stamp Act, of 1899
Section: FirstSched
[Stamp Act, 1899(11 of 1899)]......Sch. 1, Entry No. 25-Evidence- Secondary evidence-Rectification of deficiency in stamp--Copies of counterparts or duplicates of the original partnership produced as secondary evidence-Plea of deficiency in stamp not raised before the Trial Court-Presumption that the original partnership was properly stamped-Whether correct-Held yes-Question of rectification of deficiency in stamp-Whether can be raised before the High Court-Held no -Contents of the partnership deed-Whether could be proved by secondary evidence-Held yes. Case referred to :- Raja of Bobbli v. Inuganti China Sitarasami Guru (26 I. A. 262). 2. Registration Act, 1908 (XVII of 1908) -Section 17(1) ¢b). (2), Exception V-Transfer of title-Expression "whether in the present or in future" in Section 17(l)(b)-Whether refers to the right to be created in favour of transferee and not to the title or interest of the transferor-Held yes-Whether the transferor should be in possession of the right in the present and not in future-Held yes. Cases referred to : Imam Baksh Khan v. Karim Shah (16 P. R. 1895) ; Bhan Singh v. Thakur Das (89 P. R. 1908) ; Ramdas v. Nadir Shah (A. I. R. 1919 Lah. 60 ; Kanti Chandra v. Projendra Mohan (A. I. R. 1939 Cal. 186) ; Hukumchand v. Radhakishan (A, I. R. 1930 P. C. 76) ; Naba Kishore Lal Singh Deo v. Panchanon Matho (A. 1. R. 1930 Pat. 601) : Jafar Ali Khan v. Mst. Qamarunisa (A. I. R. 1938 Oudh 119 and Kameshwar Singh v, Chaudhry Rajhansi Singh alias Raja Singh (A. I. R. 1943 Pat 433) Cases distinguished: Dr, Sardar Bahadur Sir Sander Singh Majithia v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.I.R. 1942 P.C. 57 and Zainab Bai v., Ibrahimji (P.L.D. 1962 Kar. 209). 3. Registration Act, 1008 (XVII of 1908)-Section 17-Campulsory registration-Whether applies to transfer or declaration of both the vested rights and the contingent rights in immovable property-Held yes-Transfer of Property Act, 1882, ss. 19, 21. 4. Registration Act, 1908 (XVII of 1908)-Section 49 (as amended by Registration (Amendment) Ordinance (XLV of 1962, s. 13)-Evidence-Unregistered document creating, declaring or transferring a right in immovable property-Whether admissible in evidence-Held…
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