Pakistan Case LawGHULAM HAIDER and others Versus ALLAH DITTA and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the concurrent findings of two lower courts decreeing a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The petitioners, claiming to be subsequent bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the prior agreement, challenged the lower courts' findings, arguing that the vendor had not admitted that the petitioners possessed notice of the prior sale agreement. The core legal question was whether the petitioners successfully established their status as bona fide purchasers without notice. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the burden of proof regarding the status of a bona fide purchaser without notice lies squarely upon the party asserting such a claim. Since the petitioners failed to discharge this burden, and because the three lower courts had reached concurrent findings of fact on this issue, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity warranting interference. The judgment reaffirms the established principle that the onus of proving the absence of notice in a subsequent purchase rests upon the subsequent purchaser.
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a party claims to be a subsequent bona fide purchaser without notice of a prior sale agreement?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the status of a bona fide purchaser?
AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 27-6-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in R.S A. No,57 of 1984 filed by the petitioners against the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below decreeing respondents' suit for specific performance of a sale agreement in respect of the suit land, dismissing the same by affirming the above concurrent judgments. The petitioners, who claim to be subsequent bona fide purchasers without notice of the sale agreement specifically ordered to be enforced for consideration, have filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2.In support of the above petition, Syed Sajjad Raza Jaffari, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioners, have vehemently contended that the vendor, Mst. Aisha, never admitted the factum that the petitioners had the notice of the prior sale agreement in favour of the respondents. To reinforce the above submission, he has referred to the written statement wherein the correctness of the averments contained in the respondents' plaint of the suit have been denied.
3.The above contention is devoid of any force. Since the petitioners were claiming to be the subsequent bona fide purchasers without notice for valuable consideration, the burden of proof was on them, which they failed to discharge as per finding of the three Courts below. The above concurrent finding does not suffer from any infirmity as to warrant interference by this Court. Leave is refused.
Judges on this bench
- Ajmal Mian2,984 judgments
- Fazal Karim464 judgments