| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 2019 2006 SLD 2019 2006 CLC 546 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No.34 of 1996, decision dated: 18-05-2005.
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Regular Second Appeal No.34 of 1996, decision dated: 18-05-2005.
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
GHULAM NABI through L.Rs. and others
VS
TAHIR ABBAS and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 12 & 22---Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale---Defendants/vendors having failed to complete sale according to terms of agreement, plaintiffs/vendees had brought suit for specific performance of agreement---Subsequent vendees of suit property contested the suit and had denied execution of sale agreement made by vendor ladies in favour of plaintiffs---Said subsequent vendees also took-up defence that transfer in their favour by vendor ladies/defendants was genuine and that they were bona fide purchasers---Both Trial Court and Appellate Court decreed suit of plaintiffs holding that alleged subsequent sale-deeds in favour of appellants/subsequent purchasers, were result of collusion and that they were not bona fide purchasers---One of defendants ladies had filed conceding written statement and admitted claim of plaintiffs and second defendant lady was proceeded ex parte and ex parte evidence led by plaintiffs to prove agreement to sell in their favour by defendants, was concurrently found by two Courts below to be adequate and on appraisal had believed the same---Both Courts below had concurrently recorded findings of fact that appellants/subsequent vendees, were not bona fide purchasers---Appellants, who had collusively and knowingly purchased property subsequent to agreement to sell in favour of plaintiffs, could not set out S.22 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 as defence---Appeal filed by appellants/subsequent purchasers, was dismissed, in circumstances. Dulhin Rajkishore Kuer v. Muhammad Qayyum and others AIR 1942 Pat. (29) 366; Saheb Dayal Singh v. Muhabir Singh and others AIR 1930 All. 166; Hahibar Rahaman v. Ali Azhar and others AIR 1926 Cal. 1237; Genda Ram and another v. Ram Chand and another AIR 1924 Lah. 163 and Mst. Hawa v. Muhammad Yousuf and others PLD 1969 Kar. 324 ref. (b) Pleadings--- ----No one should be allowed to plead the case beyond the scope of his pleadings and if any evidence had been led which was outside the purview of pleadings of a party, same should be ignored by the Court. Qamar Riaz Hussain Basra for Appellants/Defendants Nos.3 and 4. Malik Abdul Wahid for…
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