1990 SCMR 966

MUHAMMAD BAKHSH Versus ALLAH BAKHSH

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1990 SCMR 966

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 606 of 1986

Date1989-10-22

Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan

Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah

ResultLeave refused

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant side; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. It had arisen out of respondent's suit for perpetual injunction. The respondent is the real brother of the two petitioners. The suit land was allotted to the petitioners by the Thal Development Authority with the purpose eventually to grant proprietary rights on fulfilment of certain conditions. By a subsequent agreement the petitioners acknowledged the rights of the respondent also as 1/3rd share‑holder in the above‑referred allotment and other rights ensuing therefrom; and, undertook that if they fail to fulfil this acknowledgement the respondent would be entitled to obtain a decree against them.

2. He having obtained such a decree they filed appeal and revision which having failed, now seek leave to appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, visualising that they have a very weak case on merits, raised two contentions: (i), that the agreement was without consideration; and (ii) that the respondent is not entitled to enforce the agreement as it contravened section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.

4. We have gone through the agreement with the help of the learned counsel. Its bare perusal shows that it was not without consideration. The petitioners acknowledged the "right" of the respondent as original share‑holder to the extent of 1/3rd. They also acknowledged that in pursuance of the same right, he was already in effective possession of the suit land as its owner. The first argument of the learned counsel accordingly has no force. The second argument was not pressed before the High Court. In the circumstances of this case, we do A not consider it necessary or proper to examine it. Learned counsel also tried to argue that the respondent did not pay his share of the Government dues in accordance with the agreement; but, this question also having been concluded by findings of fact, there is no justification for grant of leave to appeal. The same, accordingly, is refused.

5. A.A./M‑1164/5 Leave refused.