Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUNIR HUSSAIN versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI


Section 52 Les Pendenes, the theory of Les Penden's theory applies not only to the case of transfer of property during the trial, but also to the case where the property is otherwise dealt with. The rights of the party must be adversely affected, in which judgment can be sued in favor of Wendy. Claims for a declaration by some of the appellants were earlier sought to be implemented through a trial brought by respondents prior to the dispute previously purchased by Wendy. The property, as contemplated by Act IV of Section 52, 1882, has the effect of negatively affecting the rights of the first respondent to the pre-emption suit and to the other respondent's similar action through the view of Les Pendens. As a result, the declaration has been approved.

1981 C L C 1712

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Ilyas, J

MUNIR HUSSAIN‑Appellant

versus

MUHAMMAD SHAFT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Regular Second Appeal No. 547 of 1979, decided on 5th April, 1980.

(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑

‑‑ S. 52‑Lis pendens, doctrine of‑Doctrine of lis pendens not only applicable to case involving transfer of property during pendency of suit but also attracted to case where property other wise dealt with so as to adversely affect rights of any party to suit‑Vendee by confessing judgment in declaratory suit brought by some appellants, agreeing to part with land it% dispute purchased by him earlier‑Vendee in such way defeating pre‑emptive rights sought to be enforced by first respondent by means of suit brought by him‑Respondent No. 2, held, dealt with disputed property as contemplated by S. 52, Act IV of 1882, in such a manner as to adversely affect rights of first respondent qua pre‑emption suit and declaratory decree passed as a result of such conduct of second respondent bit by doctrine of lis pendens.

(b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑

--- S. 52 .‑Lis pendens, doctrine of‑‑‑Dectaratory decree if allowed to stand, not possible to protect pre‑emptive rights of first respon dent since in event of declaratory decree taking effect very sale pre‑empted by him would disappear leaving him with no right to be enforced by means of pre‑emption suit‑‑Only way to save first respondent from ill effects of declaratory decree, in circumstances, held, to strike down declaratory decree as being void and of no legal effect. ‑(Pre‑emption].

Rafiq Jared Butt for Appellant.

Svpd Fagir Hussain for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for Respondent No. 2.

Dates of hearing : 2nd and 5th April. 1980

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
top advocates from Vehari lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.