2006 PLP 689 (CLC)
GHULAM RASOOL and 4 others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH BAKHSH and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 689 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL and 4 others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH BAKHSH and 8 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 689 (CLC)?
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 2006 PLP 689 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 689 (CLC) (GHULAM RASOOL and 4 others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH BAKHSH and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hashim Sabir Raja for Petitioners Nos.1 to 6.
- Ms. Rizwana Naseer for Respondents Nos.1 to 4, 5-A, 5-B and 8.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 30
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12
Proprietary rights in land included in tenancy
Suit for specific performance of agreement
Plaintiffs had not impleaded Government as a defendant in suit and it was also not clear from the record that dues payable to Government for acquiring proprietary rights had been paid
Proprietary rights in respect of suit-land having not yet been transferred in favour of defendants, a decree for specific performance could not have been passed in favour of plaintiffs-Specific performance of agreement as per terms of said agreements, would need to await till conferment of proprietary rights on defendants, especially when parties themselves being cognizant of that limitation, had agreed that enforcement of agreements would be postponed till conferment of proprietary rights on defendants-Impugned concurrent decrees were modified accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
This revision petition impugns - the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court dated 2-11-2000 and of the learned Appellate Court dated 12-3-2001.
2. The facts of the case have been duly noted in the impugned judgments and need not, therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that proprietary rights in the disputed and measuring 56 Kanals, 1 Marla had not, as yet, been transferred to the petitioners and, therefore, a decree for specific performance could not have been passed in favour of the respondents. As a legal proposition, this submission has merit. The respondents/plaintiffs have not impleaded the Government as a defendant and it is also not clear from the record that the dues payable to the Government for acquiring proprietary rights have, in fact, been paid. In this view of the matter the agreements dated 5-11-1973 and 5-1-1982 executed by Full (predecessor of the petitioners) in favour of the respondents cannot be specifically enforced.
4. In the foregoing circumstances, specific performance of the aforesaid agreement as per terms of the said agreements, will need to await conferment of proprietary rights on the petitioners. The parties themselves, being cognizant of this limitation, have agreed that enforcement of the agreements will be postponed until the conferment of proprietary rights on the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the impugned decrees are modified. The prayer of injunction sought by the respondents/plaintiffs and decreed by the learned Courts below is upheld. As to specific performance, the same cannot be allowed at this stage. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./G-153/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.