Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑64 of 1974, decided on 2nd September 1974.

(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi, dated the 21st of February 1974, In First Appeal No. 22 of 1967).

‑‑ S. 17(1) read with S. 49‑Sale deed not registered and fraudulent-- Alleged purchaser not having had means to purchase factory and source from which factory claimed to be purchased found false- High Court's finding based on evidence and finding arrived at well within its jurisdiction‑Leave to appeal refused.

A. M. I. Nomant, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. M. Abbas, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.

Memo for Respondents.

Date of hearing r 2nd September 1974.

.‑‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit filed by the petitioner against Ghulam Muhammad (defendant No. 1), predecessor‑ in‑interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and respondent No. 7 Shah Nawaz (defendant No. 2) for a declaration and injunction. The case of the plaintiff‑petitioner was that he had purchased from Shah Nawaz one oil engine and its accessories which was situated at village Suleman Kandhro, Taluka Warah, District Larkana, on the 15th of February 1965. On the 24th of November 1965, Ghulam Muhammad claimed 8 annas share in the engine as well as a half of the income from the engine and threatened interference with the possession of the engine.

Ghulam Muhammad denied that Shah Nawaz was the exclusive owner of the said engine. The former claimed that he had 8 annas share in the oil engine and the factory building in which the engine had been installed on the basis of his purchase from Shah Nawaz for a consideration of Rs. 17,000.

Shah Nawaz supported the case of plaintiff Dost Muhammad and asserted that the former was the exclusive owner of the property and had sold it to the latter.

The trial Court held that Shah Nawaz was the exclusive owner of the entire engine and had sold it to Dost Muhammad. The Court further held that Ghulam Muhammad did not purchase 8 annas share of the property in dispute from Shah Nawaz prior to its purchase by Dost Muhammad. The suit was accordingly decreed.

Ghulam Muhammad preferred an appeal before the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan and urged for consideration of the following two points :‑‑

(i) Whether Gulam Muhammad possessed a half share in the property in dispute.

(ii) Whether Shah Nawaz had sold the property or any share or interest therein to Dost Muhammad.

On behalf of Ghulam Muhammad reliance was placed, inter alia, on the deed of partnership Exh. 96 dated the 26th of May 1965, in support of his case that he and Shah Nawaz owned in equal shares the rice husking machine and dour will installed in village Suleman Kandhro, Taluka Warah.

On behalf of Dost Muhammad it was contended in the High Court that the claim set up by Ghulam Muhammad in his written statement was materially different from and inconsistent with the case he tried to set up in his evidence in Court.

The High Court, however, found do inconsistency in the claim set up by Ghulam Muhammad and held that the alleged sale deed (Exh. 85) dated the 15th of November 1965, whereby, it was claimed, the factory was alleged to have been sold by Shah Nawaz to Dost Muhammad was inadmissible in evidence and fraudulent. Exh. 85 was not registered as required under' section 17 (1) read with section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The High Court further held that Dost Muhammad never had the means to purchase the factory which according to the solvency certificate Exh. 87 was valued at Rs. 60,000. Even the sources from where Dost Muhammad claimed to have got the money was found to be false. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

In our opinion the High Court arrived at its findings on the basis of evidence and was, thus, well within its jurisdiction to decide the matter in the manner it did. According to section 17 read with section 49 of the Registration Act, Exh. 96 was a useless piece of document and it created no right in Ghulam Muhammad. The very basis of the petitioner's case, therefore, collapsed.

There is no question of law far less of any of public importance involved in the case and it is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.