Summary: This appeal arose from a land dispute concerning property located in Quetta, originally owned by Muhammad Ibrahim (the landlord). After his death, the land became subject to multiple transactions, which resulted in litigation over ownership and succession. The appellant, Malik Amanullah, claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of the property, having bought it from Abdul Fateh (Respondent No. 7), who inherited the property from his father, Muhammad Ibrahim. However, prior transactions involving the land and a Power of Attorney granted by Muhammad Ibrahim were contested in court. The High Court of Balochistan upheld the findings of the lower courts, and Malik Amanullah appealed to the Supreme Court. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether the Appellant, Malik Amanullah, was a bona fide purchaser of the disputed property. ------ 2) Whether the doctrine of lis pendens (a legal doctrine preventing property transactions during pending litigation) applied to the sale of the property to the Appellant. ------ 3) Whether the cancellation of earlier mutations by Abdul Fateh (Respondent No. 7) was legally valid. ------ 4) Whether the earlier transactions and the Power of Attorney executed by Muhammad Ibrahim in favor of Respondent No. 1 were valid. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Bona Fide Purchaser: The Supreme Court rejected the Appellant's argument of being a bona fide purchaser. The Court found that the property had already been subject to litigation concerning ownership, and the Appellant could not claim ignorance of the legal disputes. ------ Doctrine of Lis Pendens: The Court held that the principle of lis pendens applied. Although the suit had been temporarily dismissed when the Appellant purchased the property, it was later restored. This restoration meant the sale occurred during the litigation and was, therefore, subject to lis pendens, rendering the sale void. The Court emphasized that transactions occurring during the pendency of a suit are not protected under the law. ------ Cancellation of Mutations: The Court found that the mutations in favor of Abdul Fateh (Respondent No. 7) were improperly executed without due process. The revenue authorities had canceled earlier mutations without providing notice or an opportunity for a hearing to the respondents (Muhammad Essa and others). This violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing, and the Land Revenue Act, 1967, made the cancellations illegal. ------ Validity of Power of Attorney: The Court upheld the validity of the General Power of Attorney executed by Muhammad Ibrahim in favor of Respondent No. 1, which allowed for the transfer of the property to his sons (Respondents No. 2, 3, and 6). The Court found no error in the original transactions under the Power of Attorney. ------ Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, and the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The earlier mutations in favor of Respondents No. 1 to 6 were restored, and the sale to the Appellant was declared invalid under the principle of lis pendens. ------ Citations/Precedents: Ashutosh Roy v. Ananta Ram Bhattacharjee (1919 IC 727): Applied the principle of lis pendens. Muhammad Ashraf Butt and others v. Muhammad Asif Bhatti and others (PLD 2011 SC 905): Reaffirmed the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan: Right to a fair hearing. Land Revenue Act, 1967: Provisions regarding mutations and the requirement of due process.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Lis Pendens )----The background involved an Agreement of Sale in 2009, where the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration, leading to a decree in favor of the defendant in a previous suit. Despite the decree, the plaintiff did not pay, and the defendant filed the present suit for damages. The plaintiff registered a notice of Lis Pendens on the defendant's property and objected to its sale. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had lost rights due to the earlier decree. The court held that the plaintiff's actions were without legal basis, citing the decree's terms that specified loss of rights in case of default. The court concluded that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act did not apply, and the agreement was rescinded by the court's decree. The defendant's application was allowed, restraining the plaintiff from interference.