Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 115, XI-A

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 53-A

Law: Registration Act, 1908

Section: 50

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 117, 118, 119

 Summary

The respondent filed suits for declaration, specific performance, and permanent injunction, asserting that he had purchased 2 kanals of land from petitioner Hafiz Hussain Ahmad through an unregistered sale deed dated 14.06.2014, had paid the entire sale consideration, and had been delivered possession, but the petitioners refused to execute the mutation and registered sale deed. The petitioners also filed a separate declaratory suit claiming ownership of the property.

The trial court decreed the respondent's suits and dismissed the petitioners' suit. The appellate court affirmed the decree. In revision, the High Court upheld the concurrent findings, holding that the respondent had successfully proved the execution of the sale agreement through the testimony of the deed writer, stamp vendor, marginal witnesses, and his own statement. The Court further noted that the petitioners themselves admitted the respondent's possession of the suit property.

Relying on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Court held that although the sale deed was unregistered, payment of the full sale consideration coupled with delivery of possession created an equitable right in favour of the respondent. The High Court further held that the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof under Articles 117, 118, and 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that no ground existed for interference under Section 115 CPC, as there was no misreading, non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional defect, or material irregularity.