اس کیس کے اہم نکات درج ذیل ہیں:
1. سیل ڈیڈ کا تنازعہ:
مدعی نے دعویٰ کیا کہ پہلی سیل ڈیڈ زبانی معاہدے کی بنیاد پر ہوئی تھی، جو رجسٹرڈ نہیں ہوئی تھی۔ دوسری سیل ڈیڈ پٹیشنر کے حق میں رجسٹرڈ ہوئی، اور اس پر مکمل قیمت کی ادائیگی کی گئی تھی۔
2. گواہان کی عدم موجودگی:
پہلی سیل ڈیڈ کے گواہان (سٹامپ وینڈر اور ریونیو آفیسر) پیش نہیں کیے گئے، جس سے پہلی سیل ڈیڈ کے قانون کے مطابق درست ہونے کو ثابت کرنے میں ناکامی ہوئی۔
3. قانونی تقاضوں کی عدم تکمیل:
مدعی نے زبانی معاہدے کی تفصیلات اپنے دعویٰ میں بیان نہیں کیں اور نہ ہی اس کے بارے میں کوئی ٹھوس ثبوت پیش کیا۔ اس کے علاوہ، نہ تو بقیہ قیمت کی عدالت میں جمع کرائی گئی اور نہ ہی معاہدے کو پورا کرنے کی کوئی کوشش کی گئی۔
4. پٹیشنر کی حفاظت:
پٹیشنر نے اپنی سیل ڈیڈ کے مطابق مکمل قیمت ادا کی تھی اور وہ ایک بااعتماد خریدار تھا جس نے معاہدے سے متعلق کوئی اطلاع نہیں رکھی تھی۔ اس لیے قانون کے تحت اسے تحفظ دیا گیا (ٹرانسفر آف پراپرٹی ایکٹ کی دفعہ 41 اور اسپیسفک رلیف ایکٹ کی دفعہ 27(ب))۔
5. عدالت کا فیصلہ:
عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ جب دوسری سیل ڈیڈ رجسٹرڈ اور قانونی طور پر مکمل تھی، تو مدعی کا زبانی معاہدہ ثابت نہیں ہو سکا اور اسے مسترد کر دیا گیا۔
نیچے کی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو غلط قرار دیتے ہوئے پٹیشنر کے حق میں سیول ریوژن منظور کیا گیا۔
یہ کیس اس بات پر زور دیتا ہے کہ کسی بھی جائیداد کی منتقلی کے دوران قانونی تقاضے اور مناسب دستاویزات کا ہونا ضروری ہے، خاص طور پر اگر زبانی معاہدے کا دعویٰ کیا جائے۔
2024 C L C 1764
[Lahore]
Before Abid Hussain Chattha, J
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE (deceased) through L.Rs.----Petitioner
Versus
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others----Respondents
Civil Revision No.2168 of 2014, heard on 17th April, 2024.
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
----Ss.41 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17 & 79---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.27(b), 42 & 54---Sale deed---Proof---Non-production of stamp vender and revenue officer as witnesses to prove first sale deed---Effect---Pleadings----Scope---Non-deposit of remaining sale consideration---Effect---Execution of two sale deeds by respondent No.2 being father/natural guardian of minors---First was allegedly executed in furtherance of oral sale in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff, which remained unregistered due to paucity of guardianship certificate---Second was executed in favour of petitioner (admittedly bona fide purchaser for value without notice), which was duly registered and possession was given to the petitioner---Suit for declaration with permanent injunction was instituted by respondent No.1 challenging he sale made in favour of the petitioner, in which respondent No.2 filed two written statements i.e. one in favour of respondent No.1 conceding his claim and other denying the same---Said suit was concurrently decreed---Contention of the petitioner was that no details of the oral transaction had been mentioned in his plaint and marginal witnesses of first sale deed were not produced by respondent No.1 in his evidence, therefore, requirement of law had not been fulfilled---Validity---There was a discrepancy between two written statements submitted by respondent No.2 that the first written statement was not verified on oath and the second written statement was verified and also challenged the authenticity of the first statement---Respondent No. 2 claimed that the first statement was neither signed nor authorized by him---Trial Court accepted said challenge and proceeded to frame issues and record evidence without relying on the first statement, consequently, it was inappropriate for the courts below to use the first statement as an admission against respondent No. 2's claim---Respondent No.1 did not list the particulars of oral transaction in the plaint and as such did not independently prove the oral transaction---Evidence qua oral sale transaction of respondent No. 1 was not only beyond the scope of pleadings but was also discrepant and contradictory particularly with respect to details of oral transaction and receipt of earnest money by respondent No. 2---No stamp vendor was produced to prove the procurement of stamp papers for the alleged draft sale deed---No revenue official was produced with respect to denial of registration of first sale deed---Second sale deed was executed and registered and there was no explanation to the effect that if the same could be registered why draft sale deed in favour of Respondent No. I was declined---There was no evidence that alleged witnesses of the draft sale deed were also witnesses of oral transaction---No target date was alleged with respect to the oral sale transaction---No effort was made to deposit balance sale consideration in Court which admittedly had not been paid till the decision of the suit to demonstrate the readiness and willingness on part of respondent No.1 to perform his part of the oral contract and his financial ability to discharge his obligation---Respondent No.1 could not prove oral sale transaction---Overwhelming evidence was on record, whereby, Respondent No. 2 admitted to have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner after receiving entire sale consideration, therefore, there was no occasion not to give preference to a valid and lawfully registered subsequent sale deed over an unproved oral sale transaction---Petitioner as bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice was entitled to the protection accorded to him by S.41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and S.27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877----Judgments of courts below being result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record as well as misapplication of law could not sustain---Civil Revision was allowed accordingly.
Saddaruddin (since deceased) through LRs. v. Sultan Khan (since deceased) through LRs and others 2021 SCMR 642 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Ditta and others 2021 SCMR 1241 rel.
S.M. Zeeshan Mirza and Inam ul Haq Buttar for Petitioners.
Liaqat Ali Malik for Respondent No.1.
Respondents Nos.2 to 8 Proceeded ex parte on 23rd November, 2023.
Comments
Post a Comment