PLD 2000 Supreme Court 792
PLD 2000 Supreme Court 792
Present: Sh. Ijaz Nisar, Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Rana Bhagwan Das, JJ
DAULAT ALI through Legal Heirs and 2 othersPetitioners
versus
AHMAD through Legal Heirs and 2 othersRespondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1631: L of 1997, decided on 5th April, 2000. .
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2121997 of Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No. 1761 of 1984). '
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
0. VI, R.8 & O.VIII, R.3QanuneShahadat (10 of 1984), Art.31AdmissionQuestion of fact having been expressly and unequivocally admitted in the pleadings, would not require any proof.
(b) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)
S. 19Sepcific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12Specific performance of agreement to sell landDocument entered into between the parties was merely an agreement to sell, specific performance whereof was postponed till such time the allottee had acquired full ownership rightsSuch a reservation was made in the document itself which reflected the awareness of the constraints, the recognition of its legal effect and an effort on the part of the parties to the contract to keep themselves well within confines of law and to act strictly in consonance with the requirements of the statuteSuch an agreement to sell was not violative of either the express provisions of S.19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 or of the public policy behind such statutory provision.
Hakim Ali v. Atta Muhammad 1981 SCMR 993; Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Hussain. PLD 1986 SC 70; Rehmat .Bibi v. Jhando Bibi 1992 SCMR 1510; Sher Muhammad Khan v. Ilam Din 1994 SCMR 470 and Abdul Ghani v. Fatima Bibi 1994 SCMR 1786 ref.
(c) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)
S. 19Ejected Tenants SchemeTransfer of proprietary rightsTenant of Government land to whom proprietary rights had been conferred under Ejected Tenants Scheme could sell his land and no permission of the Collector was required.
(d) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)
S. 19Transfer of proprietary rightsOral agreement of sale by vendor (transferee) in favour of vendee was not hit by S.19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
Hakim Ali v. Atta Muhammad 1981 SCMR 993; Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 1986 SC 70; Rehmat Bibi v. Jhando Bibi 1992 SCMR 1510; Sher Muhammad Khan v. Ilam Din 1994 SCMR 470 and Abdul Ghani v. Fatima Bibi 1994 SCMR 1786 ref.
Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, AdvocateonRecord (absent) for Petitioners.
Tanvir Ahmad, AdvocateonRecord for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 5th April, 2000.
ORDER
RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers of the learned High Court in Civil Revision No. 1761 of 1984 affirming the decree passed in a suit for specific performance by the trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court.
2. Respondents filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 2761966 relating to agricultural land measuring 63 Kanals against the petitioners' predecessorininterest Rehmat Ali (since . dead and represented by the petitioners). It was the case of the respondents that the suit land was agreed to be sold for a sum of R.s.15,000 of which Rs.12,000 were 'paid by way of earnest money while the balance amount was due and payable at the time of execution of the saledeed. It may be observed that no date for execution of the conveyance deed was fixed. It was, however, stipulated that the vendor shall perform his obligations under the agreement after payment of the balance of remaining instalments to the Government. Respondents averted that they were never notified about the payment of instalments due but quite surprisingly they learnt that the vendor was contemplating to sell the suit land to someone else whereupon they served a notice dated 1241976 on him but finding no response were obliged to file the suit for specific performance.
3. Petitioners resisted the suit on the grounds that the suit was undervalued; that it, was barred by time; that the respondents had no locus standi and cause of action to bring the suit; that no agreement of sale was executed by deceased respondentRehmat Ali and that the suit was premature and not maintainable in its present form.
4. On assessment of evidence learned trial Court decided all the issues of fact as well as law against the petitioners and decreed the suit on payment of balance amount of Rs.3,000. Petitioners unsuccessfully challenged the decree in first appeal as well as in civil revision leading to the instant petition for leave to appeal.
5. Confronted with the legal ,position that findings of fact were concluded by three Courts of law including the learned High Court, learned counsel contended with vehemence that since deceased Rehmat Ali had not been conferred with proprietary rights on the date of. execution of the agreement to sell, the transaction was void and incapable of execution. Learned counsel persuaded us to agree to the proposition that the contract of sale being violative of the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act; 1912 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1912) could not be specifically enforced by the Civil Court. The argument is wholly untenable and fallacious on the face of it. From the record we find that in the written statement filed by deceased Rehmat Ali himself on 1261976 it. was stated in clear and candid terms that he had acquired proprietary rights in respect of the suit land. The matter does not rest here. Even after his demise the petitioners in the amended written statement (which was unnecessary and uncalled for) also conceded in unequivocal terms that their predecessorininterest, deceased Rehmat Ali, had become owner of the suit land. In fact this plea was urged before the Courts below and was rightly repelled. Indeed the reasons recorded for rejecting this plea as also the submission that the respondents should have proved through concrete evidence the factum of acquisition of proprietary rightsappear to be sound and convincing. There is no manner of doubt that this question of fact having been expressly and unequivocally admitted in the pleadings did not require any proof as it is wellsettled that the facts admitted need not be proved. It is A for this reason that no specific issue on this point was struck by the trial Court and rightly so. Petitioners, however, were permitted to raise this plea in the context of Issues Nos. 3, 6 and 6C relating to the cause of action, entitlement of the plaintiffs to seek specific performance and maintainability or otherwise of the suit. Be that as it may, learned High Court in its well reasoned and wellconsidered judgment has taken care of this submission in elaborate manner which does not call for any exception.
6. Execution of a lawful agreement for valuable consideration being fully established and conferment of proprietary rights on deceased Rehmat Ali being admitted in pleadings it can hardly be said that even after 8 conferment of proprietary rights his status remained that of a tenant. Any tenant of Government land to whom proprietary rights had been conferred under the Ejected Tenants Scheme could sell his land and no permission of the Collector was required as misunderstood. Indeed the document entered into between the parties was merely an agreement to sell, specific performance whereof was postponed till such time the allottee had acquired full ownership rights. Such a reservation was made in the document itself which reflected the awareness of the constraints, the recognition of its legal e effect and an effort on the part of the parties to the contract to keep themselves well within, confines of law and to act strictly in consonance with the requirements of the statute. We are of the considered view that such an agreement to sell cannot be held to be violative of either the express provisions of section 19 of Act, 1912 or of the public policy behind such statutory provision. There have been a number of cases in which even oral agreement of sale by vendor in favour of vendee was held to be not hit by the provisions of section 19 of Act, 1912. This Court has already settled the law on the subject inn the cases reported as Hakim Ali v. Atta Muhammad 1981 SCMR 993, Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 1986 SC 70, Rehmat Bibi v. Jhando Bibi 1992 SCMR 1510, Sher Muhammad Khan v. Ilam Din 1994 SCMR 470 and Abdul Ghani v. Fatima Bibi 1994 SCMR 1786.
7. For the aforesaid facts and reasons the petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal is, thus, refused.
M.B.A./D2/S Petition dismissed
Present: Sh. Ijaz Nisar, Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Rana Bhagwan Das, JJ
DAULAT ALI through Legal Heirs and 2 othersPetitioners
versus
AHMAD through Legal Heirs and 2 othersRespondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1631: L of 1997, decided on 5th April, 2000. .
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2121997 of Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No. 1761 of 1984). '
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
0. VI, R.8 & O.VIII, R.3QanuneShahadat (10 of 1984), Art.31AdmissionQuestion of fact having been expressly and unequivocally admitted in the pleadings, would not require any proof.
(b) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)
S. 19Sepcific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12Specific performance of agreement to sell landDocument entered into between the parties was merely an agreement to sell, specific performance whereof was postponed till such time the allottee had acquired full ownership rightsSuch a reservation was made in the document itself which reflected the awareness of the constraints, the recognition of its legal effect and an effort on the part of the parties to the contract to keep themselves well within confines of law and to act strictly in consonance with the requirements of the statuteSuch an agreement to sell was not violative of either the express provisions of S.19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 or of the public policy behind such statutory provision.
Hakim Ali v. Atta Muhammad 1981 SCMR 993; Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Hussain. PLD 1986 SC 70; Rehmat .Bibi v. Jhando Bibi 1992 SCMR 1510; Sher Muhammad Khan v. Ilam Din 1994 SCMR 470 and Abdul Ghani v. Fatima Bibi 1994 SCMR 1786 ref.
(c) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)
S. 19Ejected Tenants SchemeTransfer of proprietary rightsTenant of Government land to whom proprietary rights had been conferred under Ejected Tenants Scheme could sell his land and no permission of the Collector was required.
(d) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)
S. 19Transfer of proprietary rightsOral agreement of sale by vendor (transferee) in favour of vendee was not hit by S.19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
Hakim Ali v. Atta Muhammad 1981 SCMR 993; Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 1986 SC 70; Rehmat Bibi v. Jhando Bibi 1992 SCMR 1510; Sher Muhammad Khan v. Ilam Din 1994 SCMR 470 and Abdul Ghani v. Fatima Bibi 1994 SCMR 1786 ref.
Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, AdvocateonRecord (absent) for Petitioners.
Tanvir Ahmad, AdvocateonRecord for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 5th April, 2000.
ORDER
RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers of the learned High Court in Civil Revision No. 1761 of 1984 affirming the decree passed in a suit for specific performance by the trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court.
2. Respondents filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 2761966 relating to agricultural land measuring 63 Kanals against the petitioners' predecessorininterest Rehmat Ali (since . dead and represented by the petitioners). It was the case of the respondents that the suit land was agreed to be sold for a sum of R.s.15,000 of which Rs.12,000 were 'paid by way of earnest money while the balance amount was due and payable at the time of execution of the saledeed. It may be observed that no date for execution of the conveyance deed was fixed. It was, however, stipulated that the vendor shall perform his obligations under the agreement after payment of the balance of remaining instalments to the Government. Respondents averted that they were never notified about the payment of instalments due but quite surprisingly they learnt that the vendor was contemplating to sell the suit land to someone else whereupon they served a notice dated 1241976 on him but finding no response were obliged to file the suit for specific performance.
3. Petitioners resisted the suit on the grounds that the suit was undervalued; that it, was barred by time; that the respondents had no locus standi and cause of action to bring the suit; that no agreement of sale was executed by deceased respondentRehmat Ali and that the suit was premature and not maintainable in its present form.
4. On assessment of evidence learned trial Court decided all the issues of fact as well as law against the petitioners and decreed the suit on payment of balance amount of Rs.3,000. Petitioners unsuccessfully challenged the decree in first appeal as well as in civil revision leading to the instant petition for leave to appeal.
5. Confronted with the legal ,position that findings of fact were concluded by three Courts of law including the learned High Court, learned counsel contended with vehemence that since deceased Rehmat Ali had not been conferred with proprietary rights on the date of. execution of the agreement to sell, the transaction was void and incapable of execution. Learned counsel persuaded us to agree to the proposition that the contract of sale being violative of the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act; 1912 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1912) could not be specifically enforced by the Civil Court. The argument is wholly untenable and fallacious on the face of it. From the record we find that in the written statement filed by deceased Rehmat Ali himself on 1261976 it. was stated in clear and candid terms that he had acquired proprietary rights in respect of the suit land. The matter does not rest here. Even after his demise the petitioners in the amended written statement (which was unnecessary and uncalled for) also conceded in unequivocal terms that their predecessorininterest, deceased Rehmat Ali, had become owner of the suit land. In fact this plea was urged before the Courts below and was rightly repelled. Indeed the reasons recorded for rejecting this plea as also the submission that the respondents should have proved through concrete evidence the factum of acquisition of proprietary rightsappear to be sound and convincing. There is no manner of doubt that this question of fact having been expressly and unequivocally admitted in the pleadings did not require any proof as it is wellsettled that the facts admitted need not be proved. It is A for this reason that no specific issue on this point was struck by the trial Court and rightly so. Petitioners, however, were permitted to raise this plea in the context of Issues Nos. 3, 6 and 6C relating to the cause of action, entitlement of the plaintiffs to seek specific performance and maintainability or otherwise of the suit. Be that as it may, learned High Court in its well reasoned and wellconsidered judgment has taken care of this submission in elaborate manner which does not call for any exception.
6. Execution of a lawful agreement for valuable consideration being fully established and conferment of proprietary rights on deceased Rehmat Ali being admitted in pleadings it can hardly be said that even after 8 conferment of proprietary rights his status remained that of a tenant. Any tenant of Government land to whom proprietary rights had been conferred under the Ejected Tenants Scheme could sell his land and no permission of the Collector was required as misunderstood. Indeed the document entered into between the parties was merely an agreement to sell, specific performance whereof was postponed till such time the allottee had acquired full ownership rights. Such a reservation was made in the document itself which reflected the awareness of the constraints, the recognition of its legal e effect and an effort on the part of the parties to the contract to keep themselves well within, confines of law and to act strictly in consonance with the requirements of the statute. We are of the considered view that such an agreement to sell cannot be held to be violative of either the express provisions of section 19 of Act, 1912 or of the public policy behind such statutory provision. There have been a number of cases in which even oral agreement of sale by vendor in favour of vendee was held to be not hit by the provisions of section 19 of Act, 1912. This Court has already settled the law on the subject inn the cases reported as Hakim Ali v. Atta Muhammad 1981 SCMR 993, Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 1986 SC 70, Rehmat Bibi v. Jhando Bibi 1992 SCMR 1510, Sher Muhammad Khan v. Ilam Din 1994 SCMR 470 and Abdul Ghani v. Fatima Bibi 1994 SCMR 1786.
7. For the aforesaid facts and reasons the petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal is, thus, refused.
M.B.A./D2/S Petition dismissed
Comments
Post a Comment