1989 PLP 1984 (SCMR)
REHMAT KHAN Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IKRAMUL RAO and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1984 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | REHMAT KHAN Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IKRAMUL RAO and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1984 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1984 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1984 (SCMR) (REHMAT KHAN Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IKRAMUL RAO and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rashid Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 8th October, 1984, in Civil Revision No.536 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.42‑‑Constitution of Pak1stan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Plaintiff claiming to be the owner of land in question through sale having been executed in his favour on 23rd August, 1976‑‑Defendants claimed to be owner of the same land through a consent decree dated 31st March, 1965‑‑Plaintiffs suit claiming ownership of property was dismissed as also his appeal and revision‑‑Concurrent findings of Trial Appellate Courts were to the effect that land had been validly sold to defendants by attorney of predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner plaintiff through consent decree and that no suits to challenge the decree or the power of attorney had ever been instituted‑‑High Court in revision had upheld the concurrent findings of fact of Courts below‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IOBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 8th October, 1984 whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that Umra was allotted the disputed land by Thal Development Authority under Abadkari Scheme. After his death his legal heirs went on paying the revenue dues and eventually succeeded to acquire proprietary rights therein on 17th July 1976. Thereafter they sold the said land to the petitioner on 23rd August, 1976. However on 10th September, 1976 according to the petitioner the respondents got a report entered in the Revenue record whereby a consent decree, dated 31st March, 1965 was incorporated showing that the suit land had in fact been sold by Umra in their favour. Thereupon the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner of the said land vide sale‑deed, dated 23rd August, 1976 and that decree, dated 31.st March, 1965 was ineffective qua his rights. The said suit was contested by the respondents and finally it was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal of the petitioner was likewise dismissed and subsequently his civil revision was dismissed by the High Court as stated above. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that the decree, dated 31st March, 1965 was collusive, that Umra could have not sold the said land through Abdul Ghani his attorney in favour of the respondents in 1965 when he died in 1903, and that therefore the said decree was fraudulent. But the concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are to the effect that Umra had appointed Abdul Ghani as his attorney who sold the land in question to the respondents and that no suit to challenge the power of attorney had been filed nor was the decree, dated 31st March, 1965 ever challenged. It was this concurrent finding of fact which has also been upheld in the civil revision by the High Court. Since this is the position no interference is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A./R‑103/S Petition dismissed