RASHIDURREHMAN vs AKRAM KHAN and 2 others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed his civil revision regarding a land dispute. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner, as the seller, was entitled to retain a portion of a plot of land sold to the respondents, based on a calculation of the area of a 'marla' (260 square feet versus 272 square feet) despite the sale deed specifying the total area as 5 Kanals and defining the site's boundaries. The Supreme Court examined the sale deed in its entirety and determined that the petitioner had sold the entire plot, leaving no scope to retain any part based on selective calculations. The Court held that where a sale deed specifies both the area and the boundaries, the document must be read as a whole, and the petitioner could not rely on a specific measurement calculation to contradict the clear intent of the sale. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the lower appellate court's decision.
- Can a seller retain a portion of land sold when the sale deed specifies both the total area and the boundaries of the plot?
- Should a sale deed be interpreted by reading the entire document together or by focusing on specific measurement calculations?
- Does a discrepancy in the calculation of a 'marla' allow for the retention of land already conveyed in a sale deed?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff in a suit for declaration on the question; whether he was entitled to retain a small part of the plot of land sold to the respondent side. The sale was no doubt of 5 Kanals of area, but, the measurement of the site and boundaries of the plot were also specified in the sale-deed.
2. The petitioner's claim that in case a marla is equal to 260 square feet, he would be able to retain some area over and above 5 Kanals so counted. The respondents' case is that the marla is equal to 272 square feet in the concerned locality. Moreover, according to measurements and boundaries also, the respondents' case would get supported. The petitioner's suit was decreed; but, the respondents' appeal was allowed, while petitioner's Civil Revision was dismissed by the High Court.
3. After questioning the learned counsel, we are satisfied that if the entire deed is read together, the petitioner had sold the entire plot. There was no scope for him now to retain any part thereof on the basis of one calculation ignoring the other. To be fair to the respondents side, the learned counsel himself referred to A.R. Khan v. P.N. Boga through Legal Heir, PLD 1987 SC 107; which, he frankly stated would support the respondents' case.
' Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.