ABDUL QADIR vs Messrs ZAMAN PAPERS AND BOARD MILLS LTD.
This matter concerns a dispute over the ownership of 4 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land, where both the petitioner and the respondent claimed title through separate registered sale deeds. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, alleging the respondent's prior sale deed was fraudulent. The trial court decreed the petitioner's suit, finding the respondent's documents invalid, a decision upheld by the first appellate court. However, the Lahore High Court set aside these judgments in revision, ruling that the trial court erred by declaring the respondent's sale deed fraudulent without the petitioner having formally challenged the vires of that specific deed in the pleadings. The High Court remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon reviewing the petition for leave to appeal, found no legal infirmity or illegality in the High Court's order requiring a fresh adjudication. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the necessity of deciding the competing claims on merits based on the evidence adduced by both parties.
- Can a court declare a registered sale deed fraudulent if its validity was not specifically challenged in the pleadings?
- Is a High Court justified in remanding a case for fresh adjudication when the lower courts failed to address the validity of a contested sale deed?
- Does the failure to challenge the vires of a registered document in a suit preclude a court from adjudicating its validity?
' FALAK SHER, J.---Abdul Qadir petitioner on 30-5-1998 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent M/s. Zaman Papers and Board Mills Ltd. Claiming to be owner of 4 Kanals and 10 Marlas of the within mentioned land averring to have purchased the same from Atta Muhammad and Shah Muhammad through their General Attorney Malik Muhammad Yousaf vide registered conveyance deed No,115 of 10-1-1998 registered with the Sub-Registrar, Sheikhupura; possession whereof allegedly was forcibly acquired by the respondent claiming to have purchased the same from one Sarfraz Special Attorney of Malik Muhammad Yousaf being the General Attorney of Atta Muhammad and Shah Muhammad referred to supra through registered sale-deed No,2988 of 19-6-1993, which is fake and frivolous.
2. The respondent in addition to contesting the petitioner's suit contending that its registered sale- deed being prior in point of time filed a cross suit on 22-6-1998. The Civil Judge, Sheikhupura seized of the lis through consolidated judgment, dated 20-10-2001 decreeing the petitioner's suit dismissed that of the respondent holding:--- " On the basis of my observation above plaintiff is owner of the suit property according to registered sale-deed No,115, dated 10-1-1998. Defendant has not proved the registered sale-deed bearing No,2351, dated 23-5-1993 and 2998 dated 19-6-1993 and also Mutations Nos.3283 and 3284, dated 13-2-1998, hence sale-deed and mutation in favor of .Defendant are false, frivolous without jurisdiction, void, inoperative against the rights of plaintiff and ineffective hence issues Nos.
1 and 2 is decided in favor of plaintiff and issue No,3 is decided against defendant and in favor of plaintiff." ' whose findings on appeal during post-remand proceedings were maintained by an Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura on 25-10-2002.
3. However, a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court granting the respondents' revisions setting aside the same primarily for the reason that the respondents' sale-deed has been adjudged to be false and frivolous despite vires thereof had not been assailed in the suit, remanded the case to the Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura for adjudication thereof afresh concluding as under:--- "(12) Upshot of the above discussion is that both the petitions are partly allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees, dated 25-10-2002 and 20-10-2001 are hereby set aside with no order as to costs. The result would be that both the suits, filed by the parties, shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, who shall, himself, decide the same, afresh, after hearing the parties and considering the documentary and oral evidence produced by the parties, expeditiously, and of course in accordance with law."
4. Aggrieved whereby leave to appeal is being sought; however despite the query neither the learned counsel could dislodge the reasons recorded nor point out any infirmity or illegality meriting interference nor convince us as to why the case should not be adjudged on merits on the basis of the evidence adduced.
5. Resultantly, the petitions being devoid of any substance, fail and are hereby dismissed, leave declined.