Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 2635 2007 SLD 2635 2007 CLC 1626
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No.33 of 2006, decision dated: 20-10-2006.
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, 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

MUHAMMAD AFZAL through L.Rs.

VS

MUHAMMAD DIN

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 31, 32 & 33---Rectification of sale-deed---Patent ambiguity existed in sale-deed in question---Said sale-deed purported to convey 77 Kanals, 16 Marlas from appellant to respondent---Area comprised in three Khatas---Relevant. Khata which was the basis of controversy had a total area of 894 Kanals, 14 Marlas---Contention of appellant was that at the time of execution of disputed sale-deed he was owner of 4128/71576 share in said Khata equivalent to 76 Kanals, 7 Marlas in the Khata---Appellant purported to convey 1527/71576 share which was equivalent to 13 Kanals, 2 Marlas---Equivalence, worked out between the undivided share of appellant in the Khata and the area of 76 Kanals, 7 Marlas, mentioned in .the sale-deed in question did not tally---Ambiguity in the sale-decd sought to be rectified, had arisen because in fraction 1527/71576 the numerator had been given in Marlas, while the denominator represented the total number of shares in Khata---Sale-deed in question, itself needed to be examined with the object of removing the patent ambiguity for which respondent had sought rectification---Fraction 1527/71576 being erroneous, it would, in circumstances, be unsafe to rely on same with the object of determining the area actually intended to be sold---Area in Kanals and Marlas, had unambiguously been mentioned in the sale-deed in question---Total area sold was 77 Kanals, 16 Marlas and that figure round mentioned at the head of said document/sale­deed---Ambiguity in the sale-deed in question had to be resolved by holding that appellant intended to convey 76 Kanals, 7 Marlas from relevant Khata rather than the fraction 1527/71576 which was the result of error---Courts below had also examined the record while resolving the ambiguity in the sale-deed in favour of respondent---No reason existed to interfere in the impugned decrees concurrently passed by the Courts below. Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat for Appellants. Ch. Riasat Ali assisted by Muhammad Sarwar Sabir for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th October, 2006. JUDGMENT JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The appellants are the legal heirs of Muhammad Afzal. They impugn the concurrent…
🔒
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