MUZAFFAR KHAN vs ALLAH YAR KHAN
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for possession of a disputed house, originally instituted by the respondent, Allah Yar Khan, based on a 1932 sale deed. While the trial court dismissed the suit, the appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit in the respondent's favor. The petitioner subsequently filed a revision petition in the High Court, which was dismissed in limine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought to challenge the validity of the sale deed by invoking Section 17(1)(b) and Section 49 of the Registration Act, arguing that the document could not confer title. The Supreme Court declined to entertain this legal contention, noting that it had not been raised before the High Court. Consequently, the Court held that a new legal argument, not previously agitated in the lower forum, could not be introduced at the appellate stage. Finding no merit in the challenge to the High Court's dismissal, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the appellate decree.
- Can a party raise a new legal contention before the Supreme Court that was not raised before the High Court?
- Does a failure to raise a legal argument in the High Court preclude its consideration in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Section 17(1)(b), Registration Act 1908
- Section 49, Registration Act 1908
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--This petition arises out of a suit instituted by respondent Allah Yar Khan for possession of the disputed house which he claimed to belong to him by purchase from Sultan Mahmood against consideration of Rs.140 as evidenced by sale-deed, dated 20-1-1932 Exh. P.I. The suit was dismissed but on appeal, the appellate Court decreed the suit. The petitioner came in revision before the High Court but the same was dismissed in limine by the impugned order, dated 23-1-1980.
2. Learned counsel has contended that in view of section 17(1)(b) read with section 49 of the Registration Act, the sale-deed Exh.P.1, relied upon by the respondent /plaintiff, could not create or confer any title or interest in him. But this contention not having been taken before the High Court cannot be allowed to be raised before us. The petitioner's own case based on certain documents had been examined but rejected by the High Court. No case is, therefore, made out for interference.
This petition is dismissed.