Dr. ABDUR REHMAN and others vs ALLAH DITTA and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment exercising revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was legally justified in the circumstances. A central legal question involves the applicability of the proviso to Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 regarding part performance of contracts. Additionally, the Court seeks to determine the legal effect of the non-registration of sale documents in favor of the respondent, alongside the absence of documentation regarding an alleged 99-year lease at the time possession was purportedly transferred to the petitioners. Finally, the Court will evaluate whether the conclusions and inferences drawn by the High Court during its revisional review were correct. The judgment establishes the scope of inquiry for the upcoming appeal regarding the interplay between revisional powers, the requirements of part performance, and the necessity of registered documentation in property transfers.
- Whether the conditions for exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were satisfied?
- Does the proviso to Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to the petitioners' case?
- What is the legal effect of non-registration of sale documents and the absence of documentation for an alleged 99-year lease at the time of possession transfer?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act 1882
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we consider it a fit case for grant of leave A to appeal inter alia to consider the following questions:--
(a) whether in the circumstances of the case the conditions of section 115, C.P.C. Were satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court;
(b) whether the petitioners' case is covered by the proviso to section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act;
(c) what is the effect of non-registration of sale documents in favour of Allah Ditta respondent and of absence of any documentation between the owner and the petitioners regarding the 99 years alleged lease, at the time when the possession was said to have been transferred to the petitioners (long before the formal documentation and registration); and
(d) in case the revisional jurisdiction could be exercised whether the conclusions reached and the inferences drawn by the High Court are correct.
2. ' Accordingly leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs,2,000.