1988 PLP 590 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 590 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 590 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 590 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 590 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch.Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 30-9-1987 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in R.S.A. No.121 of 1987).
Art.185(3)--Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S.19-- Respondents' suit for specific performance--Agreement to sell land--Suit decreed against petitioners and decision upheld by High Court--Plea that agreement to sell was hit by provisions of S.19 of Act (V of 1912) because requisite permission before entering into agreement to sell was not obtained, repelled--Held: Respondents were seeking specific performance from petitioners, who had become full owners of land and since they were not asking to be substituted as their tenants, it was not necessary to obtain any permission for purchasing land, in the circumstances of the case--No ground being made out for interfering with impugned judgment, petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioners had entered into an agreement of sale in favour of the respondents. The total sale consideration has admittedly been paid to the petitioners and even the possession of the land has been obtained by the respondents from the petitioners in pursuance of the decree passed in the respondents' suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement of sale. The decree was upheld or, an appeal (by the learned Additional District Judge) and also on second appeal, by the High Court. Hence this petition. A half-hearted attempt was made by Ch.Khurshid Ahmad on behalf of the petitioners to show that the agreement of sale was hit by the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912; because the requisite permission, before entering into an agreement of sale, was not obtained. This plea was earlier raised before the Courts below who held that the respondents were seeking specific performance from the petitioners herein, who had become the full owners of the land an since they were not asking to be substituted as their tenants; it was not necessary to obtain any permission for purchasing the land, in the circumstances of the case. We agree with this view. No ground for interfering with the judgments of the learned Courts below is made out. M.I./M-339/S Petition dismissed