| Case ID |
3843effb-2331-4777-bf0c-0e54ba5fa1b4 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Regular Second Appeal No. 56 of 1985/BWP |
| Decision Date |
May 16, 1992 |
| Hearing Date |
May 12, 1992 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, restoring the trial court's dismissal of the respondent's suit. The court found that the agreement to sell was not proved due to discrepancies in evidence and the relationship dynamics between the parties involved. The notion of lis pendens was also crucial in determining the legality of the sale deed executed during the pendency of the suit. The appeal was accepted, and the prior judgment was set aside, leading to the dismissal of the respondent's claim with costs throughout. |
| Summary |
In this case, the Lahore High Court dealt with a second appeal concerning an agricultural land dispute between Rahim Bakhsh and Ghulam Muhammad. The core issue revolved around the validity of an agreement to sell the land. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Rahim Bakhsh, but the decision was reversed by the first appellate court which found in favor of the respondent. However, upon further appeal, the Lahore High Court scrutinized the evidence, particularly the authenticity of the agreement to sell and the timing of the sale deed executed by Ghulam Muhammad in favor of Haji Nazir Ahmad. The court concluded that the evidence presented did not substantiate the claim of the agreement to sell, highlighting the importance of the doctrine of lis pendens in property transactions. The decision emphasizes the need for clear and compelling evidence in contractual disputes and the complexities involved in family-related transactions, particularly when allegations of deceit and familial conflict arise. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J
|
| Lawyers |
M.M. Bhatti for Appellants,
Abdus Sattar for Respondents
|
| Petitioners |
RIASAT ALI and 9 others
|
| Respondents |
RAHIM BAKHSH and others
|
| Citations |
1992 SLD 1076 = 1992 CLC 2193
|
| Other Citations |
Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepari and 3 others PLD 1969 SC 617,
Hafiz Muhammad Hussain and another v. Abbas Khan and another 1981 SCMR 1233,
Islam v. Mukhtar Ahmad.PLD 1978 Lah. 994,
Munawar v. Razia Begum and 9 others PLD 1979 Lah, 300,
Allah Din v. Habib PLD 1982 SC 465,
Alloo v. Sher Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 382,
Commissioner of Income Tax Karachi v. Haji Gulzar and Sons 1986 SCMR 1315,
Khair-ul-Nasa and 6 others v. Malik Muhammad Ishaque and 2 others PLD 1972 SC 25,
Mehmuda Sultana v. Naseem Mumtaz and another 1990 MLD 1028,
Ashoutosh Roy v. Ananta Ram Bhattacharjee and others AIR 1919 Cal. 40,
Hamraj v. Rustoinji AIR 1953 SC 503,
John Servage Philip v. City of Nagpur Corporation through its Commissioner AIR 1959 Bom. 458,
Karnaphufty Paper Mills Ltd. v. Karnaphully Paper Mills Workers' Union and others PLD 1961 SC 329,
Carrier Telephone Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Sohail Brothers & Co, Capital Development Authority PLD 1978 Lah. 1116,
Sh. Aftab Ahmed v. Deputy Commissioner, Karachi and others 1986 SCMR 445
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Contract Act (IX of 1872),
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
|
| Sections |
100,
10,
12
|