1969 PLP 513 (SCMR)

M. R. KHAN, J.‑The petitioners were the defendants in Suit No. 2 of 1963 brought by Mst. Hawa (respondent) in the Court of Civil Judge, First Class, Nawabshah. The suit was one for cancellation of certain sale deeds in respect of agricultural lands measuring 272 acres and odd and for recovery of possession of those lands. It was alleged in the plaint of the suit that the petitioners fraudulently obtained the sale deeds in respect of the suit lands. Moreover, the sale deeds were alleged to be void for want of proper sanction by the Collector. In respect of the lands in suit, Mst. Hawa executed some lease deeds in favour of the petitioners on different dates, and their possession under the lease deeds was to continue up to the year 1974‑

75. When Mst. Hawa went to recover the lease money in August 1962, she was informed by the petitioners that they had purchased the lands and were, therefore, no liable to pay the lease money. Thereupon, Mst. Hawa brought the suit for the reliefs stated above. The petitioners contested the suit. They denied the allegation that the sale deeds were obtained by them by practising fraud on Mst. Hawa and contended that she had obtained sanctions for the sale of the lands and, on the basis of those sanctions, voluntarily sold the lands to them by executing several Sale deed. The trial Court held that Mst. Hawa executed the sale deeds but declared the sale deeds to be null and void for want of proper sanction. Accordingly, a decree was passed by the trial Court cancelling the sale deeds. As regards possession the trial Court did not allow the prayer of Mst. Hawa as that Court found the petitioners to be entitled to retain possession the lands up to the year 1974‑75 on the basis of the lease deeds. Both the parties preferred appeals in the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, against the decree of the trial Court. The petitioners' appeal was numbered as First Appeal No. 32 of 1964 and the appeal of Mst. Hawa was numbered as First Appeal No. 37 of 1964. These two appeals were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court and were disposed of by a single judgment. The learned Judges of the High Court found on the basis of the evidence on record that Mst. Hawa, a very old, illiterate and pardanashin lady was kept ignorant of the real nature of the transactions and that, by practising fraud on her, the sale deeds were obtained in respect of the suit lands. They further found that no considera tion was paid for these transactions. Moreover, they were of the view that the sanctions for sale of lands as required under the relevant statutes were not granted by the proper authorities and that whatever sanctions were there had been obtained by the petitioners by practising fraud. In that view of the matter, the learned Judges agreed with the trial Court that the sale deeds were null and void. As regards the petitioners' right of possession under the lease deeds, the learned Judges held that the lease deeds themselves were in contravention of clause (b) of the proviso to section 8 of the Government Occupants (Sind) Act of 1899 inasmuch as those lease deeds were executed in succession during the subsistance of previous lease deeds in order to circumvent the law which did not permit any lease of agricultural land for any period in excess of 10 years, without previous sanction of the Collector. Accordingly, the learned Judges accepted the appeal of Mst. Hawa and dismissed the petitioners' appeal. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that learned ages of the High Court erred in arriving at the finding the sale deeds were null and void. The sale deeds have been found by the learned Judges to be null and void on the ground that these were obtained by the petitioners by practicing fraud on Mst. Hawa, and they have given ample reasons in support of their finding that Mst. Hawa, an old, illiterate and pardanashin lady was kept completely ignorant of the nature of the transactions and that no consideration was paid for them. The learned Judges further found that sanctions obtained for securing the sale of the lands were also procured by practicing fraud on Mst. Hawa. No legitimate exception can be taken to these finding of facts as these are based on good evidence. It is next contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Judges erred is not allowing the petitioners to retain possession of the lands till the year 1974‑75 on the basis of the lease deeds. The lease deeds were found by the High Court to be a device to circumvent the law which prohibited lease for a period exceeding ten years without permission. Even otherwise, the petitioners having asserted title under the sale deeds, gave up their claim under the lease deeds. This is an additional reason for which no legitimate exception can be taken to the High Court's finding that the petitioners are not entitled to retain possession of the lands. No valid ground has been made out for our interference in this case. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.