1994 PLP 1127 (SCMR)
WAZIR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHIRAZ HUSSAIN SHAH and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1127 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | WAZIR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHIRAZ HUSSAIN SHAH and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1127 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1127 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1127 (SCMR) (WAZIR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHIRAZ HUSSAIN SHAH and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 28‑2‑1993 in R.SA. No. 32 of 1987). Contract Act (IX of 1872)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 37‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan‑ (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Agreement between petitioner and respondents whereby petitioner undertook to get respondents property allotted against their claim; in turn he was to get half of the property so allotted, and if respondents revoked power of attorney they were to pay specified amount to petitioner‑‑‑Petitioner was able to get only a fractional share of property proposed in respondent's name‑‑‑Respondents, however, revoked power of attorney before confirmation of such proposal‑‑‑Proposal relating to fractional share of property was subsequently confirmed‑‑‑Trial Court rejected petitioner's claim for half share of property but granted him decree for specified amount‑‑‑Judgment of Trial Court was affirmed in appeal and in revision‑‑‑Petitioner's claim to half of property in question‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Stipulation with regard to transfer of half share to petitioner was based on assumption that he would be able to get property allotted against entire unsatisfied claim of respondents‑‑‑Petitioner, however succeeded in obtaining allotment worth a fractional share of respondents' entitlement‑‑‑Petitioner, as per terms of agreement, was not entitled to get share in whatever property was obtained by respondents through his efforts even if it constituted a very small portion of their unsatisfied claim‑‑‑Courts below were, thus, justified in rejecting his claim for half share in land actually obtained by respondents‑‑ Petitioner had already been granted decree in the sum of specified amount in accordance with the agreement in question‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑The respondents had an unsatisfied claim to the extent of 926 produce index units. They entered into an agreement with the petitioner whereby the petitioner undertook to get them property allotted against their claim. On their part the respondents agreed to transfer to him half of the property obtained by them through his efforts. The respondents executed a general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner. The agreement further provided that if the respondents revoked the power of attorney they would pay Rs.50,000 to him. It appears that the petitioner was able to get property worth 69 units only proposed in the respondents' name. Before even this proposal could be confirmed the respondents revoked the power of attorney. Subsequently, the proposal was confirmed.
2. The petitioner filed a cavil suit inter alia claiming a half share in the land which he had been able to procure for the respondents. The trial Court rejected his claim for half share but granted him a decree for Rs.50,000 in terms of the agreement. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court he filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge and later a second appeal before the High Court. Both failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court,
3. In support of this petition it is contended that in accordance with the agreement the petitioner was entitled to a half share in the land which had been transferred to the respondents through his efforts and the Courts below erred in rejecting his claim in this regard We find no merit in this contention. The stipulations with regard to the transfer of half share to the petitioner was based on the assumption that he would be able to get property allotted against the entire unsatisfied claim of the respondents which, as already stated, was to the extent of 926 units. The petitioner succeeded in obtaining allotment worth only 69 units. It was not the understanding between the parties that the petitioner would get half share in whatever property was obtained by the respondents through his efforts even if it constituted a very small portion of their unsatisfied claim. The Courts below were therefore justified in rejecting his claim for half share in the land actually obtained by the respondents. He has already been granted a decree in the sum of Rs.50,000 in accordance with the agreement. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. AA./W‑118/S Leave refused.