1985 PLP 1073 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The relevant facts are that the land presently in dispute measuring about 34 Kanals situated in Mauza Kaloki, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, alongwith some other land, was initially allotted to Faqir Hussain, father of Sakhi Hussain, respondent herein. On the death of the afore‑mentioned Faqir Hussain, Sakhi Hussain, alongwith his mother and sisters inherited the land allotted to him and a mutation of inheritance was sanctioned on 26‑7‑1960 in their favour. The share of Sakhi Hussain came to about 34 kanals as mentioned above. On 30‑7‑1963, Sakhi Hussain in favour of Abaad Ali and another, the petitioners herein, sold the land in dispute, vide a registered sale deed. It appears that during the consolidation proceedings another khasra number, namely, Khasra No.1866/1 measuring about 5 Kanals was found to have also belonged to Faqir Hussain, the father of Sakhi Hussain, out of which the share of Sakhi Hussain came to 3 Kanals and 1 Maria. Hence the share of Sakhi Hussain increased to about 37 Kanals of land. Therefore, some time in the year 1971 i.e. after 8 years of the transaction of sale, a third party allegedly at the behest of Sakhi Hussain respondent, who now wished to avoid the sale, caused a report to be lodged with the Revenue Officials that the sale deed dated 13‑7‑1963 entered between the petitioners and Sakhi Hussain, Respondent, contravened the provisions of M.L.R. No.64 as the aslienor Sakhi Hussain had not sold his entire holding as required by the clause (4) of section 25 of M.L.R. No.64. Apprehending that the Land Commission authorities may not invalidate the sale in his favour, the petitioners instituted a suit for a declaration to the effect that they were the owners of the possession of the suit land and that the sale in their favour was legal and valid. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:‑ (1) Whether the defendant sold the suit land to the plaintiffs for Rs.7, 000? (2) Whether this sale is void, illegal, ineffective, collusive and without consideration? (3) Whether this sale is against M.L.R. No.64 of 1959? (4) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land? (5) Relief. The learned trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the petitioners and in consequence thereof the suit was decreed in their favour on 12‑9‑1975. On appeal filed by the respondent‑defendant, the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura set aside the finding on issue No.3 only with the result that the appeal was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 29‑4‑1976. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court filed R . S . A . No.404 of 1976 in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 28‑2‑1977 by the learned Single Judge of the said Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. The questions which, inter alia, require further consideration, are whether a transaction, which was legal' and valid at the time when it was entered upon, can be declared to be invalid and illegal on discovery of certain facts several years after the event which were then not in the knowledge of the parties and whither a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that the transaction of sale was not hit by M.L.R. No.64 was at all competent, in view of the clear provisions of paragraph 27 of M.L.R. No.59? Leave granted. Security in the sum of Rs.1,

000. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and put up for hearing on an early date. The interim order dated 9‑6‑1977 to continue meanwhile. M. I. Leave granted.