KHUDA BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld a decree for possession of land in favor of the respondent. The respondent had entered into an 'adalapi' agreement with the petitioner in 1963 for the development of a mango orchard on 84 kanals of land. The respondent sued for possession in 1971, alleging the petitioner failed to fulfill the contractual terms within the stipulated seven-year period. The trial court decreed the suit, and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's second appeal, affirming that time was of the essence and that the petitioner failed to develop the orchard as agreed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that time was not of the essence and claimed entitlement to compensation for improvements. The Supreme Court held that the issues raised were essentially questions of fact, noting that the lower courts concurrently found the petitioner failed to comply with the agreement and failed to provide evidence justifying compensation. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding breach of contract?
- Is a party entitled to compensation for improvements on land if they fail to prove the costs incurred?
- Does a failure to develop land within a stipulated timeframe under an adalapi agreement justify a decree for possession?
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The respondent who owned 84 kanals of land in Mauza Sikandarabad, Tehsil Shujabad District Multan, contract of adalapi with the petitioner by a registered agreement 11-11- 1963 for planting a mango orchard. The conditions were in the following words: The parties also entered into a Mustajri agreement. The respondent brought a suit for possession on 6-1-1971 on the ground that the peti--tioner had failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. The suit was decreed by the trial Court against which the petitioner's first appeal failed where after he preferred a second appeal before the Lahore High Court, which, too, was dismissed by the impugned order dated 10-12-1980.
2. Two points had been raised before the High Court: Firstly, that time for growing the orchard was not the essence of the contract slid as such the possession of the land could not be delivered even after the expiry of the period of seven years stipulated therein and, secondly, that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the improvements made in the land. The contentions were repelled as the High Court came to the view that "the appellant was bound to develop the land and convert the same into a full-fledged garden within seven years by the end of 1971 and on his failure to do so the respondent had a right to rescind the contract" and that according to the findings of the two Courts below the petitioner "had failed to prove the cost of any improvement made on the land".
3. The smtye contentions, as had been raised in the High Court, are urged Wore us and it has been added that the decree of dispossession could not have been passed as the petitioner was also a lessee in respect of the land under Mustajri agreement and that there being evidence of some 176 plants existing on the land, he should have been compensated. For the same:- The points raised are basically of fact. The Courts below have concurrently found that the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms of the agreement and that he had also not produced evidence to ,justify award of compensation. In the circumstances, we do not find it a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed.
S. Q.
Cited by 1 case
- AHMAD YAR And 4 Others vs RASOOL BAKHSH And Other 1989 MLD 1043