Mst. AMINA BEGUM vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND Other
This matter originated as a civil petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that maintained the cancellation of an agreement of association regarding disputed property. The petitioner, Mst. Amina Begum, challenged the cancellation, arguing that the respondent, Mst. Fatima, had acquiesced for nine years before seeking permission to pay the property price, which implied the validity of the agreement. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in upholding the factual findings of the Settlement Authorities regarding the validity of the agreement and whether the agreement was legally binding despite procedural irregularities. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Settlement Authorities, which had thrice determined the agreement to be a forged document. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the failure to record the statements of the parties at the time of presenting an agreement of association constitutes a fatal procedural defect, rendering the agreement non-existent in the eye of the law.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by Settlement Authorities regarding the validity of an agreement?
- Is an agreement of association legally valid if the statements of the parties were not recorded at the time of its presentation?
- Does a long delay in challenging an agreement of association automatically validate the agreement despite findings of forgery?
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The property in dispute was drawn in lots in favour of Amina Begum, petitioner Mst. Amina Bagum's case is that she entered into an agreement of association with respondent No. 4 in respect of the entire property. About nine years after this, Fatima asked for permission to pay the price and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 3-5-73 recommended cancellation of the agreement of association. An appeal resulted in remand of the case and on 8- 10-73 the D. S. C. Cancelled the agreement. The case was again remanded to the D. S. C. And finally on 6-7-76 the agreement was cancelled, an order which was maintained in Writ Petition No. 1150- 8,'76. . Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
2. It has been contended before us that Mst. Fatima slept for nine long years before she applied for permission to pay the money. This should be enough to prove that she had in fact entered into an agreement of association. This contention has been considered by the High Court and has been correctly swa yed by the fact that "thrice over the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has recorded the finding of fact that the agreement of associ--ation was a forged document and could not be relied upon." The High Court rightly declined to reopen that question of fact and we are, of course, not supposed to do it at all.
3. Further it is not denied that the statement of the parties was not recorded when the alleged agreement of association was presented. This being a condition precedent for acceptance of the agreement, there was no agreement in the eye of law before the Settlement Authorities. This petition is therefore, dismissed in limine, and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- ZAWAR HUSSAIN vs Mst. SHAMSUNNISA and another 1992 CLC 2293
- KHURSHID ALI And Others vs Syed MUHAMMAD AMIN SHAH, DEPUTY 1989 MLD 3838
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs D.S.C. and others 1986 MLD 659