MUHAMMAD DIN vs Mst. SAKINA BIBI and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the validity of competing sale deeds for the same property. The petitioner, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, filed a declaratory suit challenging a prior sale deed executed in favor of the respondent, while asserting the validity of his own subsequent sale deed. Although the trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, the appellate court reversed this decision, a finding subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner could be considered a bona fide purchaser despite the subsequent nature of his transaction and a failure to conduct due diligence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish the bona fide nature of the transaction. The Court emphasized that a purchaser who fails to make necessary inquiries regarding the encumbrance of a property prior to purchase cannot claim the status of a bona fide purchaser, particularly when their title is derived from a transaction subsequent to an existing, valid sale deed.
- Can a subsequent purchaser claim the status of a bona fide purchaser without conducting any inquiry into the encumbrance of the property?
- Does a failure to establish the bona fide nature of a transaction preclude a plaintiff from succeeding in a declaratory suit against a prior sale deed?
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 14th September, 1999, whereby R.S.A. No.87 of 1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Facts briefly are that the petitioner filed declaratory suit taking exception to the sale-deed No.1429, dated 13-6-1989, in favour of respondent being collusive without consideration and sought a decree that sale-deed No.1080 executed on 23-5-1992 in his favour was correct and with consideration being bona fide purchaser. The respondent controverted the stance taken by petitioner/plaintiff. Out of the contradictory pleadings of the parties issues were framed and the evidence was recorded. The learned trial Court after scanning the entire evidence decreed the suit holding the petitioner bona fide purchaser vide judgment, dated 2-5-1996.
3. ' The respondent No.1, Mst. Perveen, filed an appeal against the order of the learned trial Judge. The learned Addition District Judge, Depalpur, through his judgment, dated 25th August, 1999, accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment rendered by the trial Court. The petitioner filed R.S.A. 87 of 1999, which has been dismissed through the impugned order. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner's sale-deed is subsequent in time. It has also been admitted and the same is also reflected from the evidence that the petitioner did not make any inquiry prior to the purchase of disputed property, whether the disputed property was encumbered in any manner or not. The petitioner totally failed to establish or record the bona fide nature of the transaction claimed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality warranting interference in the impugned judgment. Resultantly this petition is dismissed and the leave is refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- Ahmed Din (Deceased) through LRs and another vs Muhammad Iqbal 2021 SCMR 1797, 2022 PSC 488
- Hatiz TASSADUQ HUSSAIN. vs LAL KHATOON and others 2011 PLD Supreme Court 296