Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Law: Registration Act, 1908

Section: 17

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 100

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 182---Suit for declaration---Joint holding, division of---Family settlement---Proof---Admission by Attorney of existence of Family Settlement --- Principal bound by such admission---Mala fides of Patwari in not sanctioning mutation in terms of the settlement---In the present case the admission(s) on part of the defendants/petitioners coupled with documentary evidence clearly established the fact that the Family settlement (‘the Settlement’) in fact existed and, that the revenue officials could not sanction any mutation which was contrary thereto ---Attorney of the petitioners admitted the existence of the Settlement, and an admission made by Attorney was binding on his Principal who authorized him to do so, unless a contrary intention was proved on behalf of the petitioners or that he was not so authorized---Such statement of Attorney had not been disowned by the petitioners---Fact which was expressly and unequivocally admitted by the petitioners through their Attorney, would not require proof---Settlement operated as an agreement between the parties and they were bound by its termss never challenged the Settlement before any forum which effectively meant that the Settlement still bound the parties thereto and their legal heirs---Settlement was validly executed and, did not require compulsory registration---Settlement Award was handed over to the Patwari for incorporation in the relevant Register---However, the Patwari procured signatures/thumb impressions of parties on a blank ‘Parat’ of the mutation and, the Award was not given effect---Contrarily, the property which was to be given to the respondents was given to the petitioners through the impugned mutation, showing that the Patwari’s actions were tainted with mala fide---Patwari was duty bound to sanction a mutation in accordance with the terms of the Award/Settlement placed before him---Suit for declaration filed by the respondents had rightly been decreed by the High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Anees A. Sheikh v. Col. (Retd.) Ghulam Rasool Qureshi 2005 SCMR 977; Karachi…

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