Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3246 = 1981 SLD 3246 = 1981 SCMR 804
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 298 of 1975, decided on 28th January, 1981. (On appeal from the judgment dated 16th December, 1974 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1599-R of 1974).
Presented By: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah. JJ
Muhammad Rafiq Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 6.

EIDU alias EID MUHAMMAD-Petitioner

VERSUS

THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION AND OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199, 185(3)

Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Arts. 199 & 185 (3) - Contention that first agreement having not been acted upon could be superseded by another agreement Settlement authorities, held, rightly held second agreement to be not valid in presence of first agreement and rightly ordered its cancella tion-Next contention that both agreements could be given effect and one-half portion could be transferred to each one of two con testants not having been raised in earlier rounds of litigation disallowed to be agitated before Supreme Court for first time. Date of hearing : 28th January, 1981.                                                                                                                                                           ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgement dated 16th December, 1974 passed in Writ Petition No. 1599-R of 1974 by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The case has a chequered history and has come before the High Court once before when it was remanded back for fresh decision. This was taken by the Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha Division, on 8th May, 1974 against which Writ Petition No. 1599-R of 1974 was directed and has been dismissed by a judgment dated 16th December, 1974 by a learned Single Judge. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. The facts in a nutshell are that one Allah Ditta was transferred Pro perty No. 212, Block No. 4, Gojra, District Lyallpur. He entered into an agreement of association with Nathu, now dead and represented by his legal representative (respondent No. 6), whereby Nathu had to pay the transfer price of the entire house and in consideration thereof was to be transferred half of the property. However, due to certain differences with him Allah Ditta entered into another…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register