2006 PLP 1717 (YLR)
MOHSIN RAZA — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD KHIZAR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1717 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | MOHSIN RAZA — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD KHIZAR and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1717 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1717 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1717 (YLR) (MOHSIN RAZA — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD KHIZAR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Akhtar Ali Goraya for Appellant.
- Muhammad Jamil Zahid for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th April, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12
Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell property of minors
Suit land was owned by defendants who were minors and agreement to sell was executed by their father without obtaining permission of Guardian Court for effecting sale
Both the Trial Court and Appellate Court below had rightly dismissed suit filed by appellant for specific performance of agreement to sell
Impugned concurrent judgments and decrees of .Courts below, being unexceptionable, same could not be interfered with by High Court in appeal.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--This appeal impugns the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court dated 8-12-1999 and of the learned appellate A Court dated 3-7-2000 whereby a suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case have been duly noted in the impugned judgments and need not, therefore, be reproduced in ex tenso.
3. The appellant had filed a suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 2-3-1991 (Exh.P.1). The said agreement related to land-owned by the respondents/defendants who were minors. Exh.P.1 was executed by their father Muhammad Ilyas. It is important to note that in the agreement (Exh.P.1) itself it was .noted that the respondents were minors. As per terms of the said agreement, their father was to obtain the permission of the Guardian Court for effecting the sale. The admitted position is that no permission to B this effect was granted by the learned Guardian Judge. Exh.P.2, which is the order passed by the learned Guardian Judge, Sheikhupura, merely records that the father is a natural guardian and by virtue of this status is entitled to exercise the powers of a guardian in respect of the person and property of the minors. This document cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be construed as validating the agreement (Exh.P.1).
4. Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that under the Principles of Islamic Law any guardian could sell the property of a minor. To support his argument, he referred to para.362 of D.F. Mulla's Book "Principles of Mahomedan Law". I have gone through the said text and find that the general principle is that a C guardian has no power to sell the immovable property of the minor. Seven exceptions to the general rules, however, have been given in para.362. None of these exceptions have been set out in the agreement (Exh.P.1) and nor is there any evidence in proof thereof. In the foregoing circumstances, I find the impugned decrees to be unexceptionable. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show the existence of any of the ground set out in section 100, C.P.C. which would justify interference in the impugned decrees. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./M-92/L Appeal dismissed.