1986 PLP 888 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 3‑7‑1978 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Regular Second Appeal filed by vendors in a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent‑side, was dismissed. The petitioner‑side purchased land in dispute as a result of its resump tion under Martial Law Regulation No.

64. They were unable to pay the price, therefore, they entered into three agreements with the respondent side for sale. There was a condition under paragraph 32(c) of the Sale Scheme that the land so purchased under the Regulation could not be further sold without the permission of a specified authority. However, subsequently the price was paid and the petitioner‑side became full owner of the land. At that stage, the respondent‑side filed a suit for specific performance. But the learned trial Court relying on para. 32(c) of the Scheme dismissed the suit on the ground that the sale at the relevant time was prohibited. On respondents' appeal the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and after making reference to case‑law involving similar points the respondents' suit was decreed. The petitioners failed in Regular Second Appeal in the High Court. They have, therefore, sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not denied the factum of agreements. It is also not denied that after the agreements the petitioner s side became the owner of the property. Para. 32(c) of the Scheme provides that a purchaser there under shall not alienate the land by sale, lease, exchange, mortage or otherwise without prior permission in writing of the Deputy Land Commissioner. The learned Judge in the High Court rightly held that the agreement in question did not amount to alienation by sale as is mentioned in para. 32(c). 1 he provisions of section 23 of the Contract Act also for same reason was not attracted because an agreement to sell was not prohibited by the relevant law, namely, para. 32(c). The reliance by the learned Single Judge on section 18 of the Specific Relief Act is also unexceptionable. It provides that a person entering to an agreement for sale of a property having imperfect title but subsequently acquiring interest in the property, is bound to make good the in the land after they become proprietors thereof, is well‑founded. Accordingly, the case is covered by the two pronouncements of this Court, namely, Baji Abdullah Khan and others v. Nisar Muhammad Khan and others (PLD1965SC690) and Malik Muhammad Hayat Khan v. Subedar Yar Muhammad Khan (PLD1966SC612), which have rightly been relied upon by the learned Single Judge. (See P L D 1964 S C 842; 1981 S C M R 993 and P L D 1986 S C 70; in support on sec tion 19‑as also 1969 S C M R 254; 1970 S C M R 569; 1977 S C M R 154; 1983 S C M R 340 and 1985 S C M R 207; on other aspects thereof). The fact that the first case related to the interpretation of section 4 of the Kabul River Project (Control and Prevention of Speculation in Land) Act, 1948, and the second one related to section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), which are similar to para. 32(c) of the Scheme, will not make any difference and the respon dents were entitled to the benefit under the law declared therein. After hearing the learned counsel in the light of the above discussion, we do not find any force in this petition, and the same, is dismissed. M. B. A. Petition dismissed.