1989 PLP 1745 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1745 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act (IV of 1938) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1745 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act (IV of 1938) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1745 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1745 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29‑9‑1980 in Writ Petition No.805 of 1970). ‑‑‑S.2‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Contention that notwithstanding any other law or any decree to the contrary the mortgages subsisting in 1938 were to be dealt with only under the Act through an application for redemption thereof, repelled‑‑Provisions of S.2 did not exclude decrees obtained by the mortgagees through foreclosure but excluded a decree for redemption.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court. It had arisen out of a property which purported to be evacuee land. The land in dispute, according to the petitioners, belonged to them. It was mortgaged with one Tola Ram, evacuee who obtained a decree for foreclosure against the petitioners. That decree, according to the learned counsel, became final in 1945. The petitioners' side, it is evident from the record, was a party to that suit. On account of the said decree, the property in dispute has been treated as evacuee and dealt with accordingly. Notwithstanding the said decree, the petitioners' side filed application for redemption of mortgage somewhere in 1946 under section 4 of the Punjab Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1938. This application finally now stands dismissed by the impugned judgment of the High Court mainly on the ground that the decree obtained by Tola Ram and which became final in 1945 against the petitioners, was a complete bar. Leave to appeal accordingly has now been sought. Learned counsel has relied on section 2 of the said Act which reads as follows:‑‑ "
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force, this Act shall apply to any subsisting mortgages of land, which were effected prior to 8th June, 1901. Explanation.‑‑A mortgage shall be deemed to subsisting notwithstanding a decree or order for its redemption having been passed provided redemption has not taken place before the commencement of this Act." According to him, notwithstanding any other law or any decree‑ to the contrary, the mortgages subsisting in 1938 were to be dealt with only under the said Act through an application for redemption thereof. We do not agree with the learned counsel. Section 2 does not exclude decrees obtained by the mortgagees through foreclosure. The explanation to section 2 does exclude the decrees for redemption but it does not exclude a decree for foreclosure. When confronted with this position, the learned counsel remained unable to render any satisfactory explanation or answer. That being so we in the circumstances, refuse to grant leave to appeal. The petition, therefore, is dismissed. M.A.K./M‑844/S Leave refused.