| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1886 2005 SLD 1886 2005 PLD 654 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1761 of 1999, decided on 22nd June, 2005
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J
Ch. Manzoor Hussain Basra for Petitioner. Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for
Respondents
Civil Revision No. 1761 of 1999, decided on 22nd June, 2005
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J
Ch. Manzoor Hussain Basra for Petitioner. Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for
Respondents
QASIM ALI
VS
KHADIM HUSSAIN through Legal Representatives and others--Respondents
Law:
Section:
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art. 36----Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Plaintiff had contended that since defendant had failed to fulfil his obligation under the agreement and had sold the property in favour of another person therefore, he had brought the suit for specific performance impleading the alleged purchaser as a defendant and also impugning the sale in his favour---Defendant, in his written statement, conceded the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and also pleaded that no sale was made in .favour of the other person through mutation, which according to him, was the result of fraud and misrepresentation---Defendant, however, averred in his written statement that he was prepared to finalize the deal in favour of the plaintiff after the cancellation of alleged mutation, for which he asserted to take appropriate legal action, but did not do so---Purchaser, the other defendant, in his written statement, denied the execution of the agreement to sell with the plaintiff by the first defendant and claimed that the agreement was backdated and also collusive between the plaintiff and the first defendant---Both the lower Courts allowed the suit of the plaintiff and returned findings against the other defendant upon the issue of bona fide purchase---Validity---Both the Courts below, in fact, had basically relied upon the admission of the first defendant about the execution of the agreement to sell but an admission of a co-defendant was not binding upon the other which rule shall more stringently be applicable to the present case, because the other defendant had already purchased the suit property from the first defendant and a mutation in that behalf had been attested in his favour---Other defendant throughout possessed the legal title to the suit property and had every right to defend anc: protect his rights as a lawful owner thereof---First defendant who had ostensibly transferred his interest and rights in the suit property in favour of the other defendant and had never challenged the alienation independently before any forum, except setting up the defence in the present case,…
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