Muhammad Siddique Sherani V. Shahjahan and 3 others,
PLD 2015 Balochistan 143 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved a property dispute where a buyer, Muhammad Siddique Sherani, sued to enforce an agreement to sell land. He claimed the sellers had signed an agreement, handed over possession to him, and that he had even built construction on the property, but the sellers later refused to formally transfer ownership (mutation) in his name. The trial court ruled in his favor, but the appellate court reversed that decision, questioning whether the agreement was properly stamped and registered, and whether the lawsuit was even legally valid.
The Balochistan High Court overturned the appellate court's ruling and restored the original decision favoring the buyer. It held that since the agreement had already been admitted as evidence without objection during trial, the appellate court had no legal authority to later question its validity based on stamp duty issues. The court clarified that stamp laws exist to collect government revenue, not to invalidate genuine contracts. It also found that since the buyer had taken possession and built on the land as part of fulfilling the contract, he was protected under property law principles even though the agreement wasn't formally registered. The court further ruled that the lawsuit was properly filed and should not have been dismissed on technical grounds.
This judgment matters because it reinforces that technical defects like unregistered or understamped documents cannot automatically defeat a genuine buyer's rights, especially when possession was taken in good faith and part performance of the contract is evident.
یہ مقدمہ ایک جائیداد کے تنازع سے متعلق تھا جس میں ایک خریدار، محمد صدیق شیرانی نے زمین کی فروخت کے معاہدے کو نافذ کروانے کے لیے دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا۔ اس کا مؤقف تھا کہ فروخت کنندگان نے معاہدے پر دستخط کیے تھے، اسے قبضہ بھی دے دیا تھا، اور اس نے زمین پر تعمیرات بھی کر لی تھیں، مگر بعد میں فروخت کنندگان نے اس کے نام باقاعدہ انتقال کرنے سے انکار کر دیا۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے اس کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا، تاہم اپیلٹ کورٹ نے اس فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے یہ سوال اٹھایا کہ آیا معاہدہ مناسب طور پر اسٹامپ شدہ اور رجسٹرڈ تھا، اور یہ کہ آیا دعویٰ قانونی طور پر بھی درست تھا۔
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے اپیلٹ کورٹ کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے اصل فیصلہ بحال کر دیا جو خریدار کے حق میں تھا۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ چونکہ معاہدہ ٹرائل کے دوران بغیر کسی اعتراض کے بطور شہادت پیش کیا جا چکا تھا، اس لیے اپیلٹ کور