Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court accepting a civil revision filed by respondent No. 1, thereby setting aside the concurrent decrees of the trial Court and appellate Court and dismissing the petitioner's suit for specific performance. The petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell, claiming he had paid earnest money and taken possession, but the vendor subsequently colluded with respondent No. 1 to sell the plot. The Supreme Court observed that the first vendor's denial of the agreement was contradicted by a comparison of signatures showing them to be similar to the naked eye, and that the second transaction appeared non-genuine on its face. Holding that issues concerning the priority of sale and the genuineness of the transaction with the petitioner were questions worth consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal subject to a security deposit of Rs. 5,000.
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted where questions concerning the priority of sale and genuineness of a transaction require determination?
- Whether a subsequent sale transaction can override a prior agreement to sell where the second transaction appears non-genuine on its face?
- Whether the High Court in civil revision properly set aside concurrent findings regarding the execution of an agreement to sell?
ORDER
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 1-3-1987, whereby civil revision of the respondents was accepted. Muhammad Sharif plaintiff/petitioner had brought a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 14-2-1980 through which he purchased the disputed plot from Mehdi Zaman Khan defendant/respondent No.2 for a sale consideration of Rs.4,089, making an advance payment of Rs.1,079 and promised to pay the rest of the amount at the time of registration. He obtained the possession of the said plot. The petitioner added that lately the vendor in collusion with Muhammad Ramzan respondent No.1 agreed to sell the plot in question to him. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. Appeal of the respondents failed and the subsequent civil revision of Muhammad Ramzan before the High Court was accepted and the orders of the Courts below were set aside and `the suit of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 1-3-1987. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record of the case we have observed that in this case Mehdi Zaman Khan the first vendor respondent No.2 denied the execution of the agreement and the receipt of the amount. The learned Court after comparing his signatures on the disputed agreement with the signatures obtained on the sale-deed and that of the written statement, it was revealed that all the four signatures are quite similar to the naked eye. The second transaction on its face was not genuine as it was found that Mehdi Zaman Khan respondent No.2 dishonoured the agreement to sell Ex.P.1 and got the land sold by his co-sharer respondent No.1. There are points in this case particularly including, the priority of sale and the genuineness of the transaction with the petitioner, worth consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is therefore, granted.
Security Rs.5,000.
Appeal is to be prepared on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Afzal Zullah3,959 judgments
- S. Usman Ali Shah326 judgments