Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLD 719 = 1998 CLC 129
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 88 of 1992, decided on 12th September, 1997.
Presented By: Before Sardar Muhammad Raza, J
Haji Ghulam Basit for Petitioner. Qazi Muhammad Ilyas for
Respondents

ABDUL HAQ---Petitioner

VERSUS

ALI AKBAR and 12 others---Respondents

Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section: 60 , 9

  Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S.  60---Civil  Procedure  Code  (V  of  1908), S.9---Jurisdiction of Civil Court---Scope---Acquisition of title---Civil Court being Court of universal jurisdiction, its decision with regard to matters falling within its exclusive jurisdiction would be final and binding upon all other forums---Acquisition of title by prescription or otherwise, being pure question of title, any finding thereon given by Civil Court having become final, no Revenue Court howhighsoever in its hierarchy, would have authority to ignore such finding-- Collector, Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue, thus, acted without jurisdiction in bypassing finding of Civil Court---Findings of Revenue forums were, thus, rightly set aside by Trial Court in circumstances. Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----Ss.  58  &  60---Right  of  mortgagor  to redeem---Transaction                concerning mortgage---Construction---Mode---Mortgage, subsistence thereof and acquisition of title by prescription by mortgagee, were conditions that were to militate against rights of rightful owners, therefore, Courts of law which were also Courts of equity, should construe various transactions concerning mortgage in such liberal way that the right of rightful owner survived and one who had enjoyed possession and produce for nearly sixty years and had recovered amount manifold, should not be allowed to get away with the land as well.   Maqbool Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 2063 ref. Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 58---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.62---Novation of contract---What  does  and  what  does  not constitute---Receipt of mere additional charge on mortgage would not necessarily amount to novation of contract but if parties intended to do so with their mutual agreement or when circumstances gave clear indication thereof, same would be novation of contract---Principles relating to novation of contract stated. Nazeef v. Abdul Ghaffar PLD 1966 SC 267…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register