Declaration vs specific performance

- December 17, 2024

Declaration

درخواست گزاروں (چاکر بجارانی اور دیگر) کی استدعا یہ تھی کہ نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیا جائے کیونکہ ان کا مؤقف تھا کہ انہوں نے زمین خرید لی ہے، اور ان کے حق میں ایک پرائیویٹ معاہدہ ہوا تھا۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ نچلی عدالتوں نے اس معاہدے کو نظر انداز کرتے ہوئے غیر قانونی طور پر مدعا علیہان (عبدالرؤف بجارانی وغیرہ) کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا۔

اہم نکات درخواست گزاروں کی پریئر کے حوالے سے

1. نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دینا۔

2. پرائیویٹ معاہدے کو بنیاد بنا کر زمین کی ملکیت ان کے حق میں تسلیم کرانا۔

3. مدعا علیہان کو زمین پر قبضہ دینے سے روکنا اور درخواست گزاروں کو زمین کا قبضہ دینا۔

لیکن عدالت نے یہ مؤقف تسلیم نہیں کیا کیونکہ:

پرائیویٹ معاہدے پر مدعا علیہ نے دستخط نہیں کیے تھے۔

زمین کا انتقال کسی رجسٹرڈ سیل ڈیڈ کے ذریعے نہیں ہوا تھا۔

درخواست گزاروں نے اپنے حقوق محفوظ رکھنے کے لیے کوئی جوابی دعویٰ دائر نہیں کیا۔

ان وجوہات کی بنا پر عدالت نے درخواست گزاروں کی نظرثانی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا۔

2024 C L C 1645

[Sindh (Larkana Bench)]

Before Jawad Akbar Sarwana, J

CHAKAR BIJARANI and 2 others---Applicants

Versus

ABDUL RASOOL BIJARANI and others---Respondents

Civil Revision Applications No.S-33 of 2023, decided on 18th January, 2024.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss.42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for declaration, possession and injunction---Specific performance as defence---Scope---Lack of counter claim and preservation of rights---Effect---Non-execution of private agreement (Faisla)---Effect---Concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts---Scope---Joint owner of the suit land with 1/3 share---Petitioners claimed to have purchased suit land from the respondent---Contention of the petitioners was that courts below erred in law in giving decision in favour of the respondent in oblivion of the private agreement, which was made with the consent of the parties---Validity---Petitioners were pleading specific performance as a defence, which would always be an uphill task being implead as defendants---Petitioners had not raised a counter claim in the suit and did not take any other action to agitate and preserve their rights as purchasers, therefore, their defence always stood on thin ice, particularly at the belated stage of revision---Private agreement was not signed by the respondent and witnesses and suit land was not conveyed by a registered sale deed, therefore, it did not help the cause of the petitioners---No jurisdictional error or irregularity in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts of competent jurisdiction or on the point of law had been identified in the judgments and decrees of the courts below that could justify interference by the Revisional Court under S.115, C.P.C---Civil Revision was dismissed accordingly.

Abdul Rehman Bhutto for Applicants Nos.1 to 3.

Nemo for Respondent No.1.

Nemo for Respondent No.2.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.