AKHTARI BEGUM And Others vs RENT CONTROLLER And Other
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from two seemingly inconsistent decisions of the Lahore High Court concerning the same property and the same parties. The core legal question addresses the conflict between a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell granted to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest and a concurrent ejectment order against the same parties regarding a portion of the same property. The petitioners, successors-in-interest to the original owner, challenge the High Court's reversal of concurrent findings by lower courts regarding specific performance. Conversely, the occupants challenge the validity of the ejectment order in light of their possession of a decree for specific performance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the soundness of these conflicting judicial determinations and the legal implications of holding a decree for specific performance while facing an ejectment order. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo pending the final adjudication of the appeals, thereby suspending the execution of the conflicting orders until the matter is resolved.
- Can a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell coexist with an ejectment order against the same party for the same property?
- Does a High Court have the authority to reverse concurrent findings of lower courts in a second appeal regarding specific performance?
- What is the legal effect of conflicting judicial decisions between the same parties regarding the same property?
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Leave to appeal is granted to examine the soundness of to apparently inconsistent decisions of different dates of the Lahore High Court between the same parties in respect of the same property. In one (Regular Second Appeal No. 704 of 1980, decided on 18-4- 1984) Ghulam Hussain the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (in C. P. 543 of 1984) was for the first the granted a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell the disputed property against Abdul Wahab the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. In the other (W.P. 389 of 1981, decided on 20-1-1981) the ejectment order against the successors-in-interest of the same Ghulam Hussain from a portion of the same property was left intact. The owners objects on various legal grounds to the grant of decree of specific performance by the High Court reversing the concurrent finding of the to Courts in second appeal. The occupants object to the legality of the ejectment order against them, once they are armed with a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell the same property.
2. Security Rs.1,000 in each case.
3. Status quo meanwhile. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.