Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Aslam Etc.
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court concerning the validity and enforceability of an agreement for sale dated 27.05.1976. The petitioner contends that the agreement was neither proven nor legally enforceable, arguing that it violates Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, as well as provisions within the Contract Act, 1872 and the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Furthermore, the petitioner alleges that the impugned judgment is vitiated by the misreading and non-reading of evidence, specifically asserting that the High Court failed to consider the document marked as Ex. D-16. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the submissions and the arguments presented by the learned counsel, grants leave to appeal to examine the validity of the agreement, the alleged violation of statutory provisions, and the claims regarding the misappreciation of evidence by the High Court. The Court will determine whether the lower court's findings are sustainable in light of the evidence on record and the governing statutory framework.
- Is an agreement for sale violative of Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, enforceable at law?
- Does the failure of a High Court to advert to a specific piece of evidence on record constitute misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Section 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
- Contract Act, 1872
- Specific Relief Act, 1877
ORDER The learned Counsel argued that neither the agreement for sale dated 27,05.1976 was proved nor the same was enforceable at law being violative of the provisions of Section 19 of the Colonization of Government 102 S.C. Key Law Reports Vo.1. XXVI Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 as well as under the provisions of the Contract Act and the Specific Relief Act, 2000. It was further submitted that the impugned judgment suffered from misreading and non-reading of evidence on record and that even the document Ex. D-16 was not adverted to by the High Court. Reliance was placed on the case of Sardar Muhammad v. Muhammad Akram and others (2000 YLR 1824).
2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above and the other submissions.