MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and 5 others vs BASHIR AHMAD and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which partly allowed a second appeal in a property dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioners-plaintiffs could be granted a declaratory decree of ownership based on an entry in a Patwari report and an unsanctioned mutation, or whether they were only entitled to protection of possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The Supreme Court held that Section 53-A only provides protection of possession to a person holding property under an incomplete transaction of sale and does not confer title or equate to a completed transaction or registered sale-deed. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the High Court's view.
- Can a declaratory decree of ownership be granted on the basis of an unsanctioned mutation and a Patwari report?
- Does Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 confer a title or only a right to protect possession?
- Can a person holding property under an incomplete transaction of sale be equated with a person claiming title on the basis of a registered sale-deed?
- Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act 1882
' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--- Petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of ownership of suit-land on the basis of report of Patwari (Exh.P.1) and unsanctioned mutation (Exh.P.2).
Respondent No,1 Bashir Ahmad contested the suit on the ground that he had purchased the land through registered sale-deed (Exh.P.4). After trial, the suit was decreed on 31-7-1972 by the Civil Judge, Chishtian. The appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar vide judgment, dated 23-7-1973. The Second Appeal (R.S.A. No,334 of 1973) filed in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench was partly allowed. The High Court concluded that the petitioners could not be granted declaratory decree of ownership on the basis of (Exh.P.1. And Exh.P.2). However, they were entitled to protect their possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)
(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") until the clearance of charge in the sum of Rs,11, 488.
Aggrieved; the plaintiffs seek leave to appeal.
2. In support of its view, the High Court has relied upon and followed the judgments of this Court reported as Habibur Rehman and another v. Mst. Wahidania and others PLD 1984 SC 424 and Mst.
Akhtar Begum v. Mian Aziz and others 1985 SCM R 1617.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the view taken by the High Court is not correct and that in the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioners are entitled to the declaration of ownership, as prayed by them.
4. This contention is devoid of force. Section 53-A of the Act only provides protection to a person holding the property under an incomplete transaction of sale. The provision confers a right to protect the possession. A person holding property under an incomplete transaction cannot be equated with a person claiming title on the basis of completed transaction/registered sale-deed.
The High Court seems to have correctly applied the law declared by this Court in (Habibur Rehman's) case.
5. No ground for interference has been made out. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave is refused.
Cited by 4 cases
- Asadullah Khan, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd vs Muslim Commercial Bank 2022 SCP 278, 2023 PLJ SC 115, 2022 SCMR 2034
- Asadullah Khan and another vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and another 2023 PLJ SC 115
- Mst. Gulnaz vs Haji Muhammad Riaz and others 2020 PLD Supreme Court 221, 2020 PLJ SC 268, 2020 P SC 206, 2021 SCMR
- Mrs. REFHAT HAMIDEE vs Sheikh ABDUL AZIZ 2013 YLR 1898