NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs NOOR SHAH And 2 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's regular second appeal concerning a land dispute. The core controversy involves conflicting claims over 24 Kanals 18 Marlas of land. Respondent No. 1 claimed ownership based on an unregistered sale, while the petitioner secured a pre-emption decree against a subsequent vendee who held a registered sale deed. The petitioner challenged the lower courts' decisions, arguing that the respondent's earlier suit for declaration, which was dismissed, operated as res judicata against the subsequent suit for possession. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the respondent's reliance on an unregistered sale document was legally insufficient under the Transfer of Property Act 1882, given the requirement for registration. The Supreme Court, finding that these contentions raised significant legal questions requiring examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the issues regarding the applicability of res judicata to successive suits for declaration and possession, and the legal validity of unregistered sale documents versus subsequent registered deeds, necessitated a formal review. The status quo was ordered to continue pending the final decision.
- Does a previous suit for declaration of title that was dismissed operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent suit for possession?
- Is an unregistered sale document sufficient to enforce a claim of ownership when the Transfer of Property Act 1882 requires registration?
- Does a compulsorily registerable document of sale give way to a subsequent registered sale deed?
- Section 54, Transfer of Property Act 1882
ORDER
1. S. A. NUSRAT, J.-- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 2-8-1986 whereby his regular second appeal was dismissed.
2. 2.The dispute in this case relates to 24 Kanals 18 Marlas of land situate in the area of village Shahani Tehsil and District Bhakkar. The disputed land belonged to Muhammad A.I Khan, respondent No.3 herein. Noor Shah respondent No.1 claimed having purchased the said land from Muhammad A.I for a consideration of Rs.14,000. This transfer was admittedly not covered by a registered sale-deed. Muhammad A.I sold the disputed land to Atta Hussain, respondent No.2, by a registered sale-deed dated 26-2-1978 for a consideration of Rs.25,000. This sale was pre-empted by the petitioner who got a pre-emption decree in his favour on 23-7-1979 in a pre-emption suit brought against the vendee Atta Hussain and Muhammad A.I. Noor Shah brought a suit on 8-12- 1977 for declaration simpliciter that he was owner in possession of the disputed land having purchased the same from Muhammad A.I. The suit was dismissed on 23-1-1978. Noor Shah thereafter, instituted another suit on 14-2-1978 for possession against Muhammad A.I but after coming to know about the pre-emption decree passed in favour of the petitioner, he impleaded both Atta Hussain and the petitioner in the said suit. Muhammad A.I in his written statement denied having sold the land to Noor Shah. In the said suit it was asserted by the petitioner that he having secured possession through a decree passed by Civil Judge his rights were protected by virtue of a registered document executed as required under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plea of res judicata was also raised in defence. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for possession in favour of Noor Shah by judgment and decree dated 26-6-1982. The petitioner's appeal before the District Judge as also his second appeal in the High Court failed. The matter has now been brought to this Court seeking leave to appeal.
3. 3.The following contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner in support of the petition:
(1) Whether the previous suit filed by respondent Noor Shah for declaration of title which was dismissed on 23-1-1978 did not operate as res judicata and barred the second suit for possession?
(2) Whether the fact that the alleged sale which constituted the basis of the suit, and was evidenced by an unregistered document was not sufficient to throw out the suit as at the time of the so-called sale the provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act was applicable and there was no right in existence which could be enforced through a Court of law?
(3) Whether a document of sale, which was compulsorily registerable, will not give way to a registered sale even though of a subsequently date?
4. The above contentions need examination and leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,500.
4. Status quo already granted in the case shall continue until the appeal arising out of this petition is decided.