STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs PAKISTAN STOCK
This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing civil revisions filed by the petitioners, thereby upholding concurrent findings of lower courts in a long-standing property dispute. The core legal question concerned whether the agreement executed between the parties regarding the transfer of a share in the suit property was without consideration. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, based on evidence demonstrating that consideration was established through expenditure on reconstruction and repair and association in the property transfer, were unexceptionable. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent factual determinations supported by record evidence and cogent reasoning by the lower forums will not be interfered with in the absence of any legal infirmity or illegality.
- Whether an agreement for the transfer of a share in a property can be held to be without consideration when evidence establishes expenditure on reconstruction and repair?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of any legal infirmity?
- Whether a preliminary decree for partition and specific performance can be sustained when supported by evidence on record?
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---By this common judgment, we intend to decide Civil Petitions Nos.3510-L and 3511-L of 2001 involving identical questions of law and facts.
2. Leave to appeal is sought against the consolidated judgment, dated 11-9-2001 whereby the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed the civil revisions filed by the petitioners.
3. The facts of these cases are very chequered. The suit property bearing No,S-11-28-S-3 is situated in Bank Square, Lahore. It was provisionally transferred vide PTD, dated 3-12-1960 to Sh. Muzmmal Hussain, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents who was required to pay an amount of Rs,29,000. He entered into an agreement with Mian Ismail Naeem, Chairman of Pakistan Stock Exchange and agreed to sell 1/2 of the share on the receipt of Rs,14,500. Thereafter, as reflected from the documents, a handsome amount was expended in making repairs, additions and alterations etc. By him. Lastly an agreement was executed on 31-3-1961 and the respondents agreed to share the rent of the property. Sh. Muzammal Hussain secured PTD without disclosing the agreement, dated 31-3-1961 and allegedly mortgaged the property to the petitioner with the collusion of Tehrik-e-Jadid Anjuman Ahmadia Pakistan. This suit was resisted, issues were framed, the parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court dismissed the same vide order, dated 5- 11-1978. An appeal was filed and the case was remanded on 23-4-1983 by the First Appellate Court.
After remand, the learned trial Court after scanning the entire evidence brought on record, decreed the suit for specific performance. The preliminary decree qua partition was also awarded vide judgment, dated 21-12-1986. The petitioner filed appeals and the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, through his judgment, dated 25-1-1992 upheld the decree of the trial Court to the extent of specific performance of agreement, dated 31-3-1961. The preliminary decree for partition was set aside with the direction that the respondents would be entitled to get the sale-deed in respect of 1/3rd share each registered in their favor subject to payment of mortgage money. The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Ist Appellate Court by filing two civil revisions which have been dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with these petitions. We have noted that the painful litigations between the parties are going for the last more then four decades. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the agreement executed between the parties was without consideration and the Pakistan Stock Exchange had not brought on record any evidence that how much amount was spent on repairs etc. Prior to the execution of the agreement. The two Courts below have determined this question of fact after scanning the entire evidence brought on record and the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, has given cogent reasons in maintaining the same. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge which is in the following terms:--- "8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that so far as Pakistan Stock Exchange Ltd., is concerned the agreement is without consideration. Having gone through the said agreements I do not find any force in the said contention of the learned counsel. It has been clearly stated in Exh.P.2 and Exh.P.3 that two remaining parties i,e, Sh. Muzammal Hussain and Mian Ismail Naeem are associating respondent No,1 in the matter of transfer of property in equal share as respondent No,1 has spent money on reconstruction and repair of the building. This stands duly recorded in the said agreements and the witnesses produced by the plaintiff/respondent have also made reference to the said fact. On the other hand D.W.1 the sole witness produced by the petitioner has opted to remain silent as to this aspect of the matter. There is no denial of the fact that the building at first was allotted to respondent No,1 and it was in its possession and that Muzammal Hussain was an employee of the said Company. It cannot, therefore, be said that the agreement vis-a-vis Pakistan Stock Exchange Ltd. Is without consideration."
' The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any legality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
5. Resultantly, these petitions have no merit which are accordingly, dismissed and .