Law:

Section:

Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 (V of 1912)-- ----S. 19--Transfer of Property Act, S. 54--Contingent agreement Documents--Preconditions for entering into sale, gift etcetera required consent of commissioner--Agreement was not sale and mere entering into first agreement to sell was not prohibited--No specific date for performance of contract was mentioned in agreement--Question regarding bona fide--Whether transaction was hit by Section 19 of Act, 1912 or not--Concurrent findings--Validity--Appellants were aware of earlier contract, they should have restrained themselves from entering into subsequent agreement with respondent--According to such prior agreement, in case of failure of vendor to execute sale-deed after grant of proprietary rights, he was bound to pay to plaintiff amount specified therein in addition to earnest money already paid--Such prior agreement did not necessitate obtaining of prior permission under Section 19 of (Punjab) Act, 1912--Such an agreement to sell, did not fall within mischief of Section 19 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab Act), 1912 and that provisions of Section 19 of Act do not debar vendors to execute agreement to sell with vendees--Court could not go behind concurrent findings of fact "unless it can be shown that finding is on face of it against evidence or so patently improbable, or perverse that to accept it could amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice, or if there has been any misapplication of principle relating to appreciation of evidence or finally, if finding could be demonstrated to be physically impossible"--No such thing could be brought on record to warrant interference by High Court. 1994 SCMR 470, 2012 SCMR 345, 2012 SCMR 947, 1992 SCMR 1510, 2006 SCMR 1541, 2011 CLC 1566, 2006 YLR 2607, 2002 MLD 1860 & 2007 SCMR 1602, rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, J.- Through this appeal by leave of the Court the appellants have challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the Civil Revision filed by them was dismissed and the judgments of the two Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No. 1 (a to…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492