| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1755 2004 SLD 1755 2004 CLC 318 |
High Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No.36 of 2000, decision dated: 23rd September, 2003
SARDAR MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.36 of 2000, decision dated: 23rd September, 2003
SARDAR MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Azad J&K SAID MUHAMMAD and another
VS
MUHAMMAD SHARIF -
Law:
Section:
(a) Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887)-------S. 11---Objection regarding wrong valuation of suit for purpose of jurisdiction---Such objection raised in appeal for the first time--Maintainability---No objection regarding wrong valuation of suit for the purpose of jurisdiction, could be allowed to be raised before Appellate Court if such objection had not been raised before Trial Court. Muhammad Ameen's case 1992 SCR 178' ref. (b) Approbate and reprobate--- ----Principle of---Applicability---Party could not say at one time that transaction was valid and thereby obtaining some advantage and at another time say that it was invalid for the purpose of securing further advantage. PLD.1987 SC 107 ref. (c) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)--- ----S. 17---Contract for sale---Registration---Contract for sale would not require its compulsory registration because it was a document which, by itself, would not create a title, but it was a document creating a right to obtain another document i.e. sale-deed in favour of person in whose favour contract was executed. (d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Transfer, of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.53-A---Suit for specific performance of contract---Plaintiff had only sought performance of contract of sale to obtain sale-deed in his favour and had not asserted his title over suit-land through agreement for -sale---Factum of delivery of possession would be irrelevant in such case because plaintiff did not seek declaration of title on the basis of contract of sale---Although possession after its delivery to a party through an agreement to sell would be protected under S.53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but when party did not assert title over the suit-land, but simply requested the Court to direct performance of contract to obtain a further document creating title in favour of person seeking declaration, no bar existed to bring a suit for specific performance on the basis of such agreement as provided under S.12 of Specific Relief Act, 1877---Effect of an agreement to sell immovable property was that it would give a privilege to obligee/vendee against obligor/vendor to compel vendor by a suit for specific performance…
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