ABDULLAH vs NOOR-UD-DIN Ss — 2023 CLC 1784 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ABDULLAH VS NOOR-UD-DIN Ss.42, 12 & 54---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.49---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Suit for declaration, possession, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction---Maintainability---Un-registered instrument---Entitlement---Scope---Cause of action, arising of---Petitioners/plaintiffs claimed to have purchased suit-property through agreement from the father of respondents/defendants who allegedly had further alienated the property---Respondents/defendants claimed that not only suit-property was an unsettled property but the alleged agreement was an un-registered document ; and even the suit was time-barred---Trial Court dismissed the suit declaring the same as not maintainable, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court---Validity---Record revealed that agreement-in-question was an un-registered document ---No right was accrued to the petitioners / plaintiffs on the basis of un-registered document as mere agreement to sell did not confer any right in favour of the buyer in view of "sale" as well as "sale how made" having been defined and stipulated in S.54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and S.49 of the Registration Act, 1908---Un-registered agreement would not create any title or interest in the suit-property, thus a declaratory suit under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, on the basis of deed-in-question was not maintainable---Even if the suit of the petitioners / plaintiffs was to be considered as one that of specific performance, then under law of limitation, the period of filing a suit for specific performance of a contract was three years, whereas they had filed present suit after the lapse of seven years, therefore, their suit was hopelessly time-barred especially when they had not uttered a single word in their plaint as to when they got the cause of action against the respondents / defendants---Both the parties even admitted that the property-in-question was a unsettled property ; the same was neither in the name of father of the respondents / defendants nor in the name of the petitioners/plaintiffs, thus a suit for the declaration was not permissible without any entitlement with property-in-question---No illegality or infirmity was found in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below declaring the suit instituted by the petitioners/plaintiffs as not maintainable---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

ABDULLAH vs NOOR-UD-DIN Ss — 2023 CLC 1784 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLC