| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1955 SLG 112 1955 SLD 112 1955 PLD 521 |
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal No. 220 of 1953 decided on grid May, 1955, from the decree of the Court of Malik Muhammad Aslam Khan, District Judge, Jhelum, dated the 23rd day of July 1953, affirming that of Sh. Faruq Ahmad, Senior Civil Judge, Jhelum, dated the 5th May,
AKHLAQUE HUSAIN, J
Sh. Muhammad Shafi and Ch. Feroze Din, for Appellant. Mirza Muhammad Abbas, for
Respondents
Second Appeal No. 220 of 1953 decided on grid May, 1955, from the decree of the Court of Malik Muhammad Aslam Khan, District Judge, Jhelum, dated the 23rd day of July 1953, affirming that of Sh. Faruq Ahmad, Senior Civil Judge, Jhelum, dated the 5th May,
AKHLAQUE HUSAIN, J
Sh. Muhammad Shafi and Ch. Feroze Din, for Appellant. Mirza Muhammad Abbas, for
Respondents
Subedar MUHAMMAD YUSAF
VS
MUHAMMAD SARW AR KHAN and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 55 (4) (b) -Part of sale price left with vendee to be paid to a previous mortgagee, remaining unpaid--Amount unpaid as Part of consideration of sale and is a charge on property sold. Rs. 2,676 were left by the vendor with the vendee to be paid over to a previous mortgagee Amount due to the mortgagee was found to be Rs. 1,484, and only that much was paid to the mortgagee. Held the balance Rs. 1,192 was a part of the consideration for sale and was a charge on the property sold to vendee. Abdulla Beary v. Mammali Beary I L R 33 Mad. 446 ref. (b) Declaration of title---Suit for-Court may make it a condition of decree that defendant has a charge on property the subject of declaration. The vendor of a piece of land left Rs. 2,676 out of the sale price with the vendee to be paid over to a previous mortgagee. It was found that only Rs. 1,484 were due to the mortgagee which were accordingly paid. Thereupon the vendor asserted a claim upon the land for the balance of Rs. 1,192. The heirs of the vendee lodged a suit for declaration of title in reply to which the vendor defendant raised the plea that the plaintiffs were bound to pay him Rs. 1,192. The trial Court granted the declaration that the plaintiffs are owners of the land provided they pay Rs. 1,192 to the defendant. Only one plaintiffs appealed. The District Judge dismissed plaintiff's appeal. On second appeal it was contended for appellant that a declaration of title cannot be accompanied by any declaration in favour of the defendants. Held the plaintiffs are owners of the land- in suit but they hold the land subject to a charge in favour of the defendant No. 1 for Rs. 1,192. The relief for declaration is an equitable relief and the Court granting it was to give effect to all the equities arising in favour of the parties before it. Khalil-ud-Din v. Sri Ram A I R 1934 All. 176 and Mst. Komal v. Gur Charan Prasad A I R 1938 All. 242 rel. Phool Chand v. Mst. Mantia A I R 1938 All. 182 and Manak Chand v. Madan Lal A I R 1936 Lah. 943 distinguished. JUDGMENT AKHLAQUE HUSAIN, J.---The facts of this case, as found by the lower appellate Court, are these : Muhammad…
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