How to prove sale of property How to prove sale of property.

How to prove sale of property

خریداری پراپرٹی کو کیسے ثابت کرنا ھے۔

2024 C L C 624

[Peshawar (Mingora Bench)]

Before Dr. Khurshid Iqbal, J

MUHAMMAD RAZIQ SHAH and others----Petitioners

Versus

DAWOOD SHAH----Respondent

Civil Revision No.58-M with C.M. No.272 of 2018(N), decided on 14th March, 2023.

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 42---Suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and possession of the suit-property---Agreement to sell---Proof---Claim of the petitioners (plaintiffs/ vendees) was that respondent/vendor having absconded, for being involved in a woman's abduction case, sold the suit-property through his son and son-in-law---Validity---Burden was on thepetitioners to prove sale but they failed to prove as to exactly when and where the respondent agreed to sell his land to them ---Petitioners could not furnish evidence as to when the respondent was nominated in abduction case and who the alleged abducted woman was---There were contractions in the evidence produced by the petitioners regarding alleged payment of partial sale consideration; through whom sale was agreed upon; and name of the witnesses of the agreement---Even the name of the son of the respondent was not disclosed who allegedly received partial sale consideration---It did not stand to reason that instead of his own son, son-in-law of the respondent was much worried about the sale of his land for the purpose of compromise---It was unbelievable that the son-in-law or even the son of the respondent ( alleged vendor) managed to sell the land without having been authorized by the respondent to do so---Appellate Court had rightly reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court which did not warrant interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction---Revision filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---

----Ss. 39 & 41---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 12 & 54---Suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and possession of the suit-property---Agreement to sell---Entry of the vendee as possessor in Khasra Girdawri---Scope and effect---Contention of the petitioners(plaintiffs/vendees) was that they had been recorded in possession in Khasra Girdawri---Held, that an entry of possession in Khasra Girdawri could not be read as evidence of the title of the petitioners /plaintiffs, as against said entry, the respondent was recorded as owner of the suit-property in the record-of-rights---Record revealed that, on the application of the respondent, demarcation was conducted in which the petitioners were found to have encroached his (respondent's) land---Respondent had examined concerned Girdawer as one of his witnesses also---Whenever there was a conflict between the entries in Khasra Girdawri and the record of-rights, the latter would prevail---Appellate Court had rightly reversed the judgment and decree passed in favour of petitioner/plaintiffs by the Trial Court, which did not warrant interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction---Revision filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mst. Fakhrunnisa v. Mohibullah Khan PLD 1984 Pesh. 94; Malik Sher v. Rab Nawaz and 2 others 1993 SCMR 2035 and Ghulam Muhammad v. Ellahi Bux PLD 2002 Lah. 48 ref.

(c) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---

----Ss. 53 & 54-A---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 12 & 54---Suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and possession of the suit-property---Agreement to sell---Valid sale transaction---Vendee being possessor---Scope and effect---Four essential elements of valid sale transaction under S. 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (i.e. valid sale agreement, parties to the sale agreement, sale-consideration fixed and paid, and subject-matter of the sale transaction) are to be proved by the vendee ;and in case the vendee have been put in possession, the same is protected under S. 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Appellate Court had rightly reversed the judgment and decree passed in favour of plaintiffs/vendees by the Trial Court which did not warrant interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction---Revision filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Alam and others v. Qalam Badshah and others 2012 YLR 521 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Munawar Hussain and 5 others 2000 SCMR 204 ref.

Shams-ul-Hadi for Petitioners.

Naeem-ud-Din for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 14th March, 2023.

یہاں 2024 CLC 624 کے اہم نکات پیش کیے جا رہے ہیں:

1. معاہدہ فروخت کا ثبوت اور ناقابل قبول شواہد

درخواست گزار (خریدار) نے دعویٰ کیا کہ مدعا علیہ (فروخت کنندہ) جو اغوا کے کیس میں مفرور تھا، اس کے بیٹے اور داماد کے ذریعے جائیداد فروخت کی گئی۔

درخواست گزار یہ ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہے کہ مدعا علیہ نے کب اور کہاں جائیداد فروخت کرنے پر اتفاق کیا تھا۔

انہوں نے یہ بھی ثابت نہیں کیا کہ مدعا علیہ کو اغوا کے مقدمے میں کب نامزد کیا گیا اور وہ خاتون کون تھی جسے مبینہ طور پر اغوا کیا گیا تھا۔

بیانات میں تضادات تھے، جیسے:

ادائیگی کا طریقہ

معاہدے میں شامل افراد کے نام

معاہدے کے گواہان کے نام

مدعا علیہ کے داماد کے بجائے اس کا بیٹا زیادہ فکرمند ہونا چاہیے تھا، اس لیے داماد کی طرف سے معاہدہ کرنے کا دعویٰ غیر منطقی تھا۔

2. خسرہ گرداوری میں قبضے کا اندراج اور اس کی حیثیت

درخواست گزار نے خسرہ گرداوری میں اپنے قبضے کے اندراج کی بنیاد پر ملکیت کا دعویٰ کیا۔

عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ خسرہ گرداوری میں قبضے کا اندراج ملکیت کا ثبوت نہیں، جبکہ فرد حقائق میں مدعا علیہ کو اصل مالک کے طور پر درج کیا گیا تھا۔

حدود بندی کے عمل میں درخواست گزار مدعا علیہ کی زمین پر قابض پائے گئے۔

عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ خسرہ گرداوری اور فرد حقائق میں تنازع ہو تو فرد حقائق کو ترجیح دی جائے گی۔

3. فروخت کا درست لین دین اور اس کے بنیادی عناصر

جائیداد کی فروخت کے لیے چار بنیادی عناصر کو ثابت کرنا ضروری ہوتا ہے:

1. معاہدہ فروخت کی موجودگی

2. معاہدے کے فریقین کی تصدیق

3. فروخت کی قیمت کی ادائیگی

4. جائیداد کی مخصوص نشاندہی

خریدار کے قبضے کا تحفظ سیکشن 53-A، ٹرانسفر آف پراپرٹی ایکٹ 1882 کے تحت ہوتا ہے، لیکن وہ تب ہی ممکن ہے جب فروخت کا معاہدہ مستند ہو، جو کہ یہاں ثابت نہ ہو سکا۔

4. عدالت کا فیصلہ

ماتحت عدالت کے فیصلے کو اپیلٹ کورٹ نے کالعدم قرار دیا۔

درخواست گزار اپنے دعوے کے ثبوت فراہم کرنے میں ناکام رہے۔

معاہدہ فروخت کی صداقت مشکوک ہونے کی بنیاد پر ہائی کورٹ نے نظرثانی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔

یہ فیصلہ ظاہر کرتا ہے کہ فروخت کا معاہدہ ثابت کرنے کے لیے مستند شواہد، گواہان اور قانونی تقاضے پورے کرنا ضروری ہوتے ہیں۔

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.