| Case ID |
02648b96-2d99-4c7a-9c23-33ba548ee027 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 1660 of 2005 |
| Decision Date |
May 26, 2011 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The petition is accepted, and all reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are granted. The deed of General Power of Attorney is deemed cancelled, and all transactions made during the pendency of the suit are declared null and void, lacking legal effect. The property shall be restored in the name of the petitioner. No order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In the case of Writ Petition No. 1660 of 2005, the Peshawar High Court examined the validity of property transactions made during the pendency of a legal suit. The petitioner, Muhammad Shabbir, challenged the legality of a registered sale deed executed by his agent, claiming it was fraudulent and occurred after a court judgment had declared prior transactions invalid. The court emphasized the principle of 'lis pendens', which prohibits property transfers during ongoing litigation. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, nullifying the fraudulent transactions and restoring the property rights to him. This case highlights the importance of due diligence in property transactions and the protective measures available under the Transfer of Property Act, particularly for bona fide purchasers. Key sections referenced include S. 52, S. 41, and S. 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, alongside relevant Civil Procedure Code provisions. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Jehan Khan,
Dost Muhammad Khan
|
| Lawyers |
Abdul Zakir Tareen,
Sadullah Khan
|
| Petitioners |
Muhammad Shabbir
|
| Respondents |
,
Sub-Registrar, Peshawar District Court, Peshawar,
Abdul Zakir Tareen
|
| Citations |
2011 SLD 357,
2011 PLD 228
|
| Other Citations |
Ashutash Roay v. Seeta Ram (1919 I.C. 727)
|
| Laws Involved |
Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
52,
41,
7,
O.IX, R.8,
O.IX, R.9
|