MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN And Others vs GHULAM ABBAS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Civil Revision arising out of a declaratory suit based on a claim of ownership by purchase. The core legal question concerns whether the vendor, who sold village Shamilat land that was subsequently acquired and returned by the Thal Development Authority, is bound under section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to satisfy the vendees' claim out of the subsequently acquired or returned land on the principle of feeding the estoppel. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised require examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down relates to the application of the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel under section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act when a vendor subsequently acquires an interest in property they previously purported to transfer.
- Whether a vendor is bound under section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to satisfy a vendee's claim when land is subsequently returned following acquisition by the Thal Development Authority?
- Does the principle of feeding the estoppel apply to the sale of Shamilat land in excess of the vendor's actual share when the vendor subsequently acquires title to replacement land?
- Section 43, Transfer of Property Act 1882
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 11-2-1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' Civil Revision arising out of a declaratory suit based on claim of ownership on account of purchase, was dismissed.
2. According to the facts given by the learned counsel, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners purchased 554 Kanals of land from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. The transaction was of a larger area but the remaining land, learned counsel stated, was purchased by other persons who are no more in the contest. Learned Counsel further stated that the land in question was village Shamilat and it had come under the acquisition proceedings by the Thal Development Authority. The said land along with other land belonging to the vendor after having been acquired, classified and made into blocks, was returned to the owner in four Chaks i. e., 527 to 530. The land sold to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was included in Chak No. 530. On account of dispute having arisen between the parties the petitioner-side filed a suit for declaration regarding ownership of the land in dispute. It was decreed to the extent of 98 Kanals only. The suit regarding the remaining land, as explained by the learned counsel, was dismissed on acceptance of the respondents, (defendants), plea that the Shamilat land purchased by the petitioners (plaintiffs) was in excess of the share to which the vendor was entitled. Appeal and revision filed by the petitioner-side having been dismissed, they have now sought to appeal.
3. Learned counsel relying on the statement of the Special Qanoongo has contended that the land sold to the petitioners' predecessor in-interest came under the ownership of the vendor after the acquisition by the Thal Development Authority in Chak No. 530. That being so, the vendor (and his successor-in-interest) was bound by virtue of section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, on the principle of feeding the estoppels, to satisfy the petitioners' claim in its entirety to the extent the vendor received land back as a "return" from the Thal Development Authority in Chak No.530.
4. Question raised require examination. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted.
5. Security Rs 2,500.