Muhammad Fazil vs Mst. Sakina Bibi
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had set aside the appellate reversal of the trial court decree and dismissed the petitioner's suit. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to the protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as an ostensible owner, specifically regarding whether requisite inquiries had been made. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly found the lower appellate court had misread the evidence and misconstrued the law, and that there was no evidence on record to establish the necessary inquiries required to claim protection under the statute. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act requires clear evidence of reasonable inquiries made by the transferee, failing which the defense of an ostensible owner cannot be sustained.
- Whether a transferee is entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 without proving requisite inquiries?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that corrects a lower appellate court's misreading of evidence?
- Section 41, Transfer of Property Act 1882
ORDER
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J. --- In this matter, the learned High Court found that the learned Additional District Judge who had reversed the judgment and decree passed by a learned Trial Judge and consequently dismissed the suit, had fallen into error by misreading the evidence available on record and misconstruing the law on the subject. In reaching the said conclusions the learned High Court had found no evidence on record which could lead to a conclusion that the petitioner had made . The requisite enquiries to qualify him to the protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
2. We have heard the learned ASC for the petitioner at some length who could not point out any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refuse.