The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 100
The Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section 14
Specific performance of an agreement to sell property–– The trial court came to the conclusion that the wife of the vendor was not party to the agreement, therefore, the agreement could not be operative to the extent of her land, and that the subsequent purchasers were bonafide purchasers for value without notice. In view of these findings, the trial court rejected the prayer of the vendee for specific performance of the agreement, but granted him the relief of recovery of the paid consideration amount of Rs.2,79,000/- against the vendor. The vendee being not satisfied of the relief granted appealed in the District Court. As the vendor had not appealed against the decree passed by the trial court against him for recovery of the paid consideration amount, the appellate court only examined the issue on the assertion of the subsequent purchasers to be the bonafide purchasers, in detail, and affirmed the findings of the trial court thereon. The appellate court thus dismissed the first appeal of the vendee, maintaining the judgment of the trial court with a minor modification in the terms that the vendee was held entitled to receive 10% markup also on the paid consideration amount from the date of payment till its recovery.–– The High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the two courts below. Therefore, the emphasis of the High Court on the fact that the subsequent purchasers did not enquire from the revenue officials and inspect the revenue record before purchasing the land is totally misconceived. Nor was there any such overwhelming evidence on the basis of which it could be held that the agreement of the vendee to purchase the suit land was “the talk of the town.” The High Court also fell into error by reversing the finding of the trial court that the wife of the vendor was not party to the agreement therefore the agreement was not operative to the extent of the wife of the vendor.–– The High Court wrongly interfered with their concurrent findings of fact and in so doing exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. Supreme Court, therefore, allow this appeal: set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the first appellate court. .....Zafar Iqbal =VS= Naseer Ahmed, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (SC) 9] ....View Full Judgment

The Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section 42 r/w
The Land Revenue Act, 1967
Section 42 r/w
The Code of Civil Procedure
Order XXXII, Rule 15
Suit for declaration and cancellation of the disputed mutation–– It is a well-settled principle of law that mutation does not confer title, however, it may be considered as a piece of evidence if it is affected in accordance with law. .....Zaffar Afzal =VS= Ashiq Hussain, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (SC) 28] ....View Full Judgment