Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 4 of 1971, decided on 3rd February 1971.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 5th October 1970, in Regular Second Appeal No. 1086 of 1969).
Can not operate as a deed of transfer of immovable property.
O. I, r. 10‑Necessary parties‑Person having no interest in property in suit‑Not a necessary party‑Suit not defective or bad on such score.
O. XIV r. 1‑Issues Mortgagee resisting suit for redemption of mortgage filed by purchaser (with right to redeem mortgage) on ground of having himself previously purchased property from owner for valuable consideration and within plaintiff purchaser's knowledge‑Court, however, on materials on record coming to finding that mortgagee did not acquire any interest in property by purchase as alleged‑Conten tion that formal issue on point whether mortgagee was bona fide purchaser for value ought to have been framed, held, had no substance in circumstances.
Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 3rd February 1971.
.‑The dispute in this case relates to a shop which was originally owned by one Jan Muhammad. This shop was mortgaged by Jan Muhammad in favour of Fazal Karim, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners for Rs. 5,000. Subsequently, Jan Muhammad sold the shop to Muhammad Ashraf, the respondent herein for Rs. 25,000 out of which he paid Rs. 20,000 in cash and retained Rs. 5,000 in order to redeem the mortgage. Fazal Karim, the mortgagee having refused to receive the mortgage money, Muhammad Ashraf brought a suit for redemption of the mortgage. Fazal Karim resisted the suit contending that subsequent to the mortgage he purchased the disputed shop to the knowledge of Muhammad Ashraf, the plaintiff of the suit. The trial Court found Muhammad Ashraf to be the purchaser of the shop for valuable consideration, rejected the alleged purchase by Fazal Karim and decreed the suit for redemption. This decree was maintained on appeal. A second appeal taken to the High Court by Fazal Karim was dismissed in limine. The petitioner as legal representatives of Fazal Karim (since deceased) seek special leave to appeal.
Muhammad Ashraf purchased the disputed shop for Rs. 25,000 by a registered deed of sale. This was accepted by the Courts below as a genuine transaction. It appears that Fazal Karim relied on one Amanatnama (Exh. D. 1) in support of his alleged purchase of the shop from Jan Muhammad. This Amanatnama was, in fact, executed not by Jan Muhammad, but by his son Abdul Aziz, and, that too, not in favour of Fazal Karim but in favour of his sister Mst. Iqbal Begum. Obviously, this Amanatnama is not a deed of transfer and it did not convey any interest in the shop in favour of Fazal Karim. The second appeal was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the High Court.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the suit was bad for defect of party for not impleading Iqbal Begum in the suit. There is no substance in this contention inasmuch as Iqbal Begum not having any interest in the shop was not necessary party.
It was next contended that Fazal Karim being a bona fide purchaser of shop for a valuable consideration without notice of the alleged purchase of the plaintiff a formal issue should have been framed with regard thereto. This contention is also of no substance. Although no formal issue with regard to Fazal Karim's being an alleged bona fide purchaser was framed in the suit, it was found on the materials on record that he did not acquire any interest in the shop by purchase.
There is no merit in this petition. The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer