MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others vs Mst. BASEERAT and others

ORDER

' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The appellants filed a suit challenging the registered sale deed in favour of the respondents qua the property in question which has been decreed by the learned Trial Court and the appeal filed by the respondents has been dismissed. However, the learned High Court has interfered in the revisional jurisdiction and by setting aside the impugned judgments before it, has dismissed the suit.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that such concurrent findings could not be interfered with as the reasons assigned therein were founded upon proper appreciation of evidence.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and find that it is not a case pertaining to appreciation of evidence, rather about the correct application of law. The appellants claim that the property in issue was originally transferred in favour of one Barkat Ali by the Settlement Department who had entered into an agreement to sell with their grandfather, namely, Allah Rakha who made a will in their favour by virtue whereof they have acquired the ownership in order to adjudicate if a valid sale had taken place in favour of Allah Rakha by Barkat Ali which could pass on a valid title to the former who thereafter could make a valid will in favour of the petitioners. Be that as it may, when questioned as to what is a sale and how a sale is made, though the provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (the Act) have been read, but learned counsel has not been able to establish if the property could at all be sold in favour of Allah Rakha through an unregistered agreement to sell. It is also mandated in the second part of section 54 of the Act that such an agreement would not confer any right to the property. Moreover the provisions of section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 read with section 17 of the Act also come in the way of the appellants as the agreement to sell of the property would not confer any title in favour of Allah Rakha allegedly executed by Barkat Ali which could further confer any rights in the immovable property unto the appellants. In light whereof, as these aspects were not considered by the first two courts, the learned High Court has rightly interfered and accepted the revision petition. No case for interference has been made out. Dismissed accordingly.