Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2888 2010 SLD 2888 2010 SCMR 1871
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1826 of 2005, decision dated: 2-10-2009
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND CH. IJAZ AHMED, JJ

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

ABDUL RASHID

VS

. MUHAMMAD YASEEN and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Sale deed-------Registered sale deed prior in time must be given due weight over later sale deed. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 41--- Sale by ostensible owner--- Protection--- Principles---If transferee after taking reasonable care to ascertain that transferor has acted in good faith, then his rights are protected. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ---S.8---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Recovery of possession---Transfer by ostensible owner, principle of---Applicability---Registered sale deed prior in time---Effect---Plaintiffs sought recovery of possession of suit land on the basis of sale deed registered in their favour prior in time than the sale deed executed in favour of defendant, registered later in time---Suit and appeal filed by plaintiffs were concurrently dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court but High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs---Validity---Provisions of S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, could protect a transferee provided he had acted in good faith and took reasonable care to ascertain that transferor had power to make transfer and in such exercise inquiry into valid title was involved---Defendant was not vigilant to make any inquiry regarding status of land in question---Rights of plaintiffs were, therefore, rightly held to have been protected under the provisions of S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Where two Courts below, while giving their findings on question of law had committed material irregularity or acted to read evidence on point which resulted in miscarriage of justice, therefore, High Court had the occasion to re-examine the question and to give its findings on that question in exercise of revisional jurisdiction---High Court was obliged to interfere in findings recorded by courts below while exercising power under S.115 C.P.C.---No infirmity or illegality in the passed by High Court, having been found, Supreme Court declined to interfere in the same---Appeal was dismissed. Abdul Qahir's case PLD 2002 SC 321 and Muhammad Bashir's case 2003 SCMR 774 ref. Maulana…
🔒
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