| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 869 1990 SLD 869 1990 SCMR 966 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 606 of 1986, decision dated: 22-10-1989.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND SAAD SAOOD, JAN, JJ
M. Hanif Awan Advocate, Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 606 of 1986, decision dated: 22-10-1989.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND SAAD SAOOD, JAN, JJ
M. Hanif Awan Advocate, Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and anothers
VS
ALLAH BAKHSH
Law:
Section:
Contract Act (1X of 1872)-------S. 25---Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Plaintiff's entitlement to enforce agreement---Defendants were allotted State land with the purpose eventually to grant proprietary rights on fulfilment of certain conditions---Defendants by a subsequent agreement, acknowledged right of plaintiff also as 1/3rd share-holder in the allotment and other rights ensuing therefrom, and undertook that if they failed to fulfill such acknowledgement, defendant would be entitled to obtain a decree against them---Plaintiff having obtained such a decree, defendants' appeal and revision against that decree failed---Leave to appeal---Defendants' contention was; that the agreement was without consideration; and that plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the agreement as the same contravened S. 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Agreement between the parties showed that the same was not without consideration---Defendants acknowledged the "right" of plaintiff as original shareholder to the extent of 1/3rd, and also acknowledged that in pursuance of the same right, he was already in effective possession of suit land as its owner---First contention of defendants had, thus, no force---Further contention that the agreement was in contravention of S. 19 of Act V of 1912, was not pressed before High Court---Supreme Court thus did not consider it necessary or proper to examine same---Defendants' contention 'that plaintiff did not pay his share of Government dues in accordance with agreement, having been concluded by findings of fact, there was no justification for grant of leave to appeal---Leave was refused. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant side; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. It had arisen out of respondent's suit for perpetual injunction. The respondent is the real brother of the two petitioners. The suit land was allotted to the petitioners by the Thal Development Authority with the…
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