| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1050 2004 SLD 1050 2004 SCMR 891 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1088 L of 2002, decision dated: 17-04-2002.(On appeal from the judgment dated 4 2 2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.2055 of 1995)
TANVIR AHMED KHAN AND KHALIL UR REHMAN RAMDAY, JJ
Malik Saeed Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1088 L of 2002, decision dated: 17-04-2002.(On appeal from the judgment dated 4 2 2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.2055 of 1995)
TANVIR AHMED KHAN AND KHALIL UR REHMAN RAMDAY, JJ
Malik Saeed Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents
KHURSHID ALAM
VS
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD through Mushtaq Ahmed and others
Law:
Section:
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (IV of 1912)--- S. 19 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3) Conferment of proprietary rights after delivery of possession Registered agreement to sell Agreement to sell was got registered by the parties and pursuant thereto possession of the property in dispute was given to the plaintiffs in the year 1963 ¬Proprietary rights were conferred upon defendant on 30 4 1977 and consequently mutation was sanctioned on 4 5 1977 Plaintiffs, according to the terms of the agreement, also paid the instalments Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs but the Appellate Court dismissed the same being time barred High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction restored the passed by Trial Court ¬Plaintiffs remained vigilant throughout and the defendant deferred execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other and finally declined to perform his part of the contract Effect Plaintiffs, in circumstances, could not be said to have slept over their rights and their suit was barred by limitation, particularly so when they had no notice of the refusal of performance on the part of the defendant Possession of the disputed land was transferred to the plaintiffs by the defendant under the agreement as far back as in the year 1963 During all the period the defendant had not brought any evidence worth consideration on record to demonstrate that possession of the plaintiffs was either illegal or was under some other terms Judgment of High . Court was free from any legal infirmity warranting interference by Supreme Court Leave to appeal was refused. ORDER TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J. Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 4 2 2002 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No.2055 of 1995 was allowed and the determinations of the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, recorded in his judgment dated 27 9 1995 were set at naught by restoring the judgment/decree earlier passed by the trial Court on 30 4 1991. The facts briefly narrated are that an agreement was executed between the parties on 6 3 1963 which was got registered…
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