1989 PLP 1594 (SCMR)
SAID ALI SHAH Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1594 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal ,JJ |
| Parties | SAID ALI SHAH Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI Respondent |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1594 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1594 (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 1594 (SCMR) (SAID ALI SHAH Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sanaullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (since deceased) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 12th January, 1983 in Civil Revision No.1794/D of 1982). ‑‑‑S.19‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Respondent's suit for specific performance of agreement was decreed in appeal on the ground that agreement to sell sought to be enforced was legal as under the agreement an undertaking was given to do all what was necessary for formally completing the sale and that after the conferment of proprietary rights the provisions of S.19 could not be invoked as against that agreement‑‑Law laid down in 1980 S C M R 314, being fully attracted to the facts of the case, petition was dismissed. Ghulam Muhammad v. Mauladad etc. 1980 S C M R 314 ref.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 12th January 1983 whereby the civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the disputed land was allotted to the petitioner under Abadkari Scheme. He entered into an agreement to sell the said land on 5th May, 1973 to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.11,500 with the stipulation that it would be transferred in favour of the respondent after the acquisition of proprietary rights. The agreement to sell was got registered and the petitioner after receiving the consideration money also executed a receipt in favour of the respondent. The petitioner was granted proprietary rights in the said land on 16th August, 1979. However instead of transferring the said land under the agreement to the respondent it was transferred by the petitioner to one Muhammad Nawaz through Allah Diwaya his general attorney. It was in this background that a suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent as against the petitioner. After hearing the parties the suit was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the impugned agreement of sale was illegal and void and as such specific performance of it could not be ordered. Thereupon the respondent challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree in appeal which was accepted on the ground that the agreement to sell sought to be enforced was legal as under it an undertaking was made to do all what was=necessary for formally completing the sale and that after the conferment of proprietary rights the provisions of section 19 of the Colony Act could not be invoked as against that agreement. The judgment of the Additional District Judge passed in appeal of the respondent in his favour was challenged` by the petitioner by way of civil revision which was dismissed by the learned Judge as stated above. Hence the present petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in 1980 S C M R 314 (Ghulam Muhammad A v. Maula Dad etc.) is fully attracted to the facts of the present case. Hence we do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./S‑284/S Petition dismissed.