MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others vs TUFAIL MUHAMMAD
This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from concurrent findings of lower courts decreeing the respondent's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 9-3-1974. The trial court had initially dismissed the suit on the ground that it violated paragraph 24 of Martial Law Regulation No.115 and section 19 of the Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912, while deciding other issues in favour of the respondent. The appellate court allowed the respondent's appeal, and the Lahore High Court dismissed the subsequent civil revision filed by the appellants. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence regarding the execution of the agreement to sell and whether specific pleas of fraud or forgery were duly raised. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to specifically plead fraud or forgery in their written statement and that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of the agreement were unexceptionable in the absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts regarding the execution of an agreement to sell can be interfered with in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Is a party permitted to challenge the execution of an agreement to sell on the grounds of fraud or forgery without specifically pleading the same in the written statement?
- Whether an agreement to sell is barred by paragraph 24 of Martial Law Regulation No.115 and section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 when not specifically established as violative in the pleadings?
- Paragraph 24, Martial Law Regulation No.115
- Section 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The suit of the. Respondent for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 9-3-1974 was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Sumandri, District Faisalabad vide judgment, dated 11-4-1990 on the ground that the same was violative of provisions of paragraph 24 of the Martial Law Regulation No,115 and section 19 of the Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912. The other issues touching the merits of the case were, however, decided in favour of the respondent. The appeal of the respondent was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment, dated 18-2-1991 whereas the cross-objections of the appellants were dismissed. Therefore, the appellants filed Civil Revision No,304 of 1991 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, vide impugned judgment dated 15-10-2001. Hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the evidence on record was not properly taken into consideration by the Courts below as the execution of agreement to sell (Exh.P.1) was not admitted by the appellants and that the statements of the P.Ws. Were contradictory which did not inspire confidence.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court and the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that the appellants had executed the agreement to sell Exh.P.1 without their being any element of fraud or forgery. There was no misreading or non-reading of evidence by any of the Courts.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the relevant record with their assistance.
5. We find that the appellants had not specifically pleaded in their written statement that Exh.P.1 was either not thumb-marked by them or that the same was obtained through fraud or forgery. It merely stated that the agreement to sell was hit by the provisions of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR-115 of 1972) and section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the High Court and the Courts below after proper appreciation of evidence of the parties are unexceptionable in the absence of any misreading or non-reading, of the material evidence on record. In our view the impugned judgment of the High Court is plainly correct which does not suffer from any defect or other legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. .
Cited by 1 case
- SARFRAZ (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs SHAH NAWAZ etc 2017 PLJ Lahore 817