Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 3059 2006 SLD 3059 2006 PLD 404
Sindh High Court
dates of hearing: 12th 19th, 26th August, 9th, 16th and 30th September, 2005, Civil Revision Application No. S-15 of 1996, decided on 17th March, 2006
SAMAD, JALAL OSMANY, J
Abdul Naeem for Applicant. Abdul Qadir Shaikh for
Respondents.

ABDUL LATEEF--Applicant

VS

ASHIQUE ALI and others

Law:

Section:

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)- ----Ss.58(c) & 60---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 39---Suit for specific performance of agreement and cancellation of, subsequent sale-deed---Mortgage by way of conditional sale---Claim of petitioner was that respondent obtained amount as loan from him and as security for repayment of said loan, he had mortgaged his shop in favour of petitioner with a stipulation that if said amount would not be paid by stipulated date, mortgage deed would be treated as one for absolute sale; and thereafter respondent would execute sale-deed in favour of petitioner---Petitioner had further asserted that possession of shop had been delivered to him and that respondent had also executed power-of­ attorney in favour of son of petitioner, whereby said attorney would be authorized to execute sale-deed in favour of petitioner---Petitioner had alleged that respondent had failed to repay amount by stipulated date and instead fraudulently had executed a sale deed for sale of said shop in favour of other respondent---Respondent denied claim of petitioner contending that amount had been returned to petitioner and possession of shop in question had been delivered to respondent---Suit filed by petitioner was decreed by the Trial Court, but appellate court set aside and decree of the Trial Court and petitioner had filed revision against of appellate court---Validity---Held, in view of stipulations and conditions contained in mortgage deed in question, it was a mortgage by conditional sale within the meaning of S.58(c) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and suit based upon same for specific performance would be barred being a clog on equity of redemption which had been accorded to the mortgager under S.60 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Suit for specific performance filed by petitioner upon document in question, would be barred by law---No exception could be taken to impugned order passed by appellate Court below. Abdul Sattar v. Sardar Begum 1992 SCMR 417; Ganu Mia v. Abdul Jabbar PLD 1959 Dhaka 293; Allahanda v. Sadarangmal PLD 1967 Kar. 859; Aziz Ullah Khan v. S.H.O. 2001 YLR 263; Muhammad Ramzan v. Yagoot Begum 1991 SCMR 819;…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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