Mst. FATEH BIBI and others vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute concerning the alleged sale of State land allotted to the respondents. The petitioners claimed that an oral agreement existed under which they paid Rs. 6,000 to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest to cover land installments in exchange for half ownership of the land. The respondents denied the sale, asserting the money was a loan evidenced by a pronote. The trial court initially decreed in favor of the petitioners, but the appellate court reversed this, finding no evidence of a sale agreement and noting the absence of required government permission under the Colony Act. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' subsequent revision. The Supreme Court addressed whether the petitioners had established the existence of an oral agreement of sale. The Court held that the petitioners failed to prove the agreement, as the payment was evidenced by a pronote indicating a loan. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact, dismissing the petition. The principle affirmed is that where an alleged agreement of sale is not established by evidence, claims of title based on such agreements must fail.
- Does the existence of a pronote regarding a payment for land installments negate the claim of an oral agreement of sale?
- Can a court grant a declaration of title based on an oral agreement of sale when the existence of such an agreement is not proven by evidence?
- Is permission under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 required for a sale agreement that has not been established as a matter of fact?
- Section 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 3rd December, 1983 whereby civil revision petition of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' The facts are that some State land was allotted to the predecessor-ininterest of respondents Nos.1-8 and respondent No,9 jointly under a Government scheme. They defaulted in making payment of the instalments and an agreement was made between the petitioners and the respondents under which the possession of the land was delivered to the petitioners who made payment of Rs,6,000 to Din Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 8 for the payment of the instalments. It was further orally agreed between the parties that half of the land would belong to the petitioners and the other half to the respondents after the prorietary rights had been confirmed in favour of the respondents. Entries in the Revenue record were not changed but they continued to remain in the name of the respondents. Since the respondents did not acknowledge the title of the petitioners, they brought a suit for declaration to that effect. But the respondents denied that there existed any agreement of sale between the parties and claimed that sum of Rs,6,000 was received as a loan and a pronote to that effect had been made in favour of the petitioners accordingly. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners but the appellate Court arrived at the conclusion that there was no clear evidence of the existence of the agreement which could confer any right in favour of the petitioners. Besides that there was also no permission taken under section 19 of the Colony Act from the Government for the said sale.
3. Thereafter the petitioners filed revision against the appellate judgment which was dismissed as stated above. Hence the present petition.
4. ' Learned counsel attempted to argue before us that the parties were inter-related and therefore agreement of sale could not be reduced into writing and that Rs,6,000 had been advanced not as a loan to pay the instalments but was paid in connection with the price of the said land. But this assertion is negatived because the payment of Rs,6,000 had been evidenced by a pro-note which indicates that the said amount was received as a loan by Din Muhammad. Thus the finding of fact of the appellate Court which was upheld by learned Judge of the High Court was that the petitioners could not prove the existence of the agreement of sale between the parties. It was therefore rightly held that section 19 of the Colony Act would be applicable only if the agreement could have been established. Since the finding of fact has been recorded against the petitioners, we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.