Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 6 1966 SLD 6 1966 PLD 612
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1964, decision dated: 10th March 1966. dates of hearing: 9th and 10th March 1966
FAZLE-AKBAR, HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND S. A. MAHMOOD, JJ
Muhammad Shafi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan Senior Attorney for Appellant. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Munir Ahmad, Attorney for
Respondent

Malik MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN

VS

Subedar YAR MUHAMMAD KHAN

Law: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Section: 19,21

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100

(a) Colonisation of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19 read with S. 21- (Prohibition of transfer of rights in tenancy)"Sale, exchange, etc. or other private contract"-Com promise as to estate of original holder, between heirs, embodied in a civil Court decree held to be a "family settlement" and not "sale", "exchange" or "private contract" in circumstances of case-Com­ promises upheld-Cash to be paid by one party to other held not to be "consideration" for the compromise transaction-Transfer taking place after mutation sanctioned by authorities-Whether equivalent to permission of such authorities-Ex post facto permission. Section 19 of the Colonisation of Government Lands Act does not prohibit any and every kind of agreement but only agreements which purport to transfer or to charge the rights and interests vested in a tenant holding land under the said Act. For determining the true nature of the transaction one must look into the entire background which led to it. The compromise in this case, purported to effect a distribution of the estate of parties' father on the basis that it consisted not of only 12 squares of land but of 15 squares. Even the mutation that was effected in pursuance of this compromise decree was not as in the case of a transfer by sale, exchange or gift but merely by the addition of the name of a co-owner. The compromise in this case was for the purpose of bringing about a family settlement and not a transference of a share on the basis of a consideration. Section 19 has no application to the case of transference by inheritance or succession. Since section 21 of the Act of 1912, provides for succession a settlement of a dispute regarding the persons entitled to succeed by a family arrangement would not come within the mischief of section 19, for in such event mutation would be entered under section 21(6) in the name of the person or persons who, as agreed upon, are entitled to succeed "if the tenancy were agricultural land acquired by the original- tenant", The payment in this case of Rs. 5,000 was in the nature of an adjustment of equalization fund or compensation for improvements effected in the land by the younger son…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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