ABDUL SATTAR (Deceased) vs MUHAMMAD YASEEN (Deceased) Ss — 2024 CLC 1812 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

ABDUL SATTAR (Deceased) VS MUHAMMAD YASEEN (Deceased) Ss. 12 & 29 (b)---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 52 & 58---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Principle of bona fide purchaser and lis pendens---Applicability---Mortgaged property---Petitioner / plaintiff sought specific performance of agreement to sell qua suit property which was already mortgaged with a bank---Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of petitioner / plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court modified the decree and held petitioner / plaintiff only entitled to recover the amount already paid to respondent / defendant---Validity---Transaction with respect to mortgaged property in favour of any financial institution did not become void under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1877---Mortgage rights of financial institution remained intact and transferee of suit property remained under obligation to pay mortgage money to creditor---Respondents / subsequent purchasers, purchased property in dispute during pendency of litigation---By getting suit property transferred in their favour during pendency of proceedings, respondents / subsequent purchasers stepped into the shoes of respondent / defendant and the subject matter agreement was specifically enforced in favour of petitioner / plaintiff against them in terms of S. 29(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1877 which ordained that not only the parties to agreement but also their successors were bound by it---Only exception in such behalf was that of bona fide purchaser for value without notice on any existing agreement---In case of conflict of two principles 'bona fide purchaser' versus 'lis pendens' the latter was to prevail---Respondents / subsequent purchasers could not use shield of bona fide purchasers as they had purchased suit property during pendency of proceedings---As successors of respondent / defendant they were bound to convey the property to petitioner / plaintiff---High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court whereby suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was decreed---Revision was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1812 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ABDUL SATTAR (Deceased) VS MUHAMMAD YASEEN (Deceased) O.XLI, R. 31---Judgment by appellate Court---Necessary ingredients---Verdict or judgment of appellate Court which does not contain justified reasoning to set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court cannot sustain in the eyes of law---appellate Court can competently reverse findings of Trial Court but such reversal must always be backed by better and sustainable legal reasoning---appellate Court cannot evolve findings arbitrarily and illegally on imaginary principles and cannot exercise its jurisdiction unlawfully suffering from material irregularities---Such judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

ABDUL SATTAR (Deceased) vs MUHAMMAD YASEEN (Deceased) Ss — 2024 CLC 1812 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC