MUHAMAMD AFZAL And Another vs REHMAT ALI And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that allowed a civil revision in a suit for declaration. The respondent-plaintiff sought a declaration that they were in possession of suit property under an agreement to sell and that subsequent mutations in favour of the petitioners were illegal. The trial and appellate courts initially dismissed the suit as premature, but the High Court reversed this, relying on precedents regarding the validity of agreements to sell land. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell land, executed before the acquisition of proprietary rights and without obtaining sanction under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, could form the basis of a valid civil action. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that such agreements are enforceable despite the lack of prior sanction, affirming that the absence of proprietary rights at the time of the agreement does not bar a civil action for declaration against the vendors or subsequent transferees.
- Can an agreement to sell land be enforced if the vendor had not yet acquired full proprietary rights at the time of the agreement?
- Does the lack of prior sanction under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, invalidate an agreement to sell land for the purposes of a civil action?
- Is a suit for declaration based on an agreement to sell maintainable against subsequent transferees where the original vendor lacked proprietary rights at the time of the agreement?
- Section 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
- Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act 1882
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by defendants' side in a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff/respondent is in possession of the suit property under an agreement to sell and that the defendants were required by law to abide by this agreement and further that the mutation of alienation in favour of other transferees /petitioners side was inoperative, illegal and void.
2. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court as premature. The respondent's appeal was also dismissed but civil revision filed by the respondent/plaintiffs side. Was allowed mainly on the basis of some recent judgments of this Court Accordingly the petitioners have now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the same plea which has adequately been dealt with by the High Court. It relates to the bar contained in section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
4. It appears that there was no controversy before the High Court regarding the basic validity of the agreement in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and invalidity of the sale in favour of the petitioners. The point of real contest which was before the High Court and has again been raised by the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition, is that the proprietary rights not having been obtained at the time of the agreement in respondent's favour, the said agreement could not be made a basis for civil action either against the vendors or against the present petitioners; because, no sanction was obtained under section 19 before the execution of the agreement in favour of the respondent.
5. Similar question in similar situation was resolved by this Court in connection with the provisions of another law--Kabul River Project (Control and Prevention of Speculation in Land) Act, 1948, which prohibited alienation of land. The law laid down in that. Behalf was in the case of Haji Abdullah Khan and others v. Nisar Muhammad Khan and others PLD 1965 SC 690. Another judgment which goes against the petitioners is Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Mirza Muhammad Hussain PLD 1986 SC 70. The view taken in Ghulam Rasul and others v. Muhammad Anwar and others (1969 SCMR 254), has since been distinguished in the cases like the present one and the case-law in this behalf has been referred in Mst. Begum Bibi and others v. Abdul Sattar 1987 SCMR 1. Accordingly the approach of the High Court on this question being, unexceptionable, no justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
6. Before closing this order it needs to be noticed that the learned counsel also reiterated the arguments advanced before the High Court on the basis of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, however, when the infirmity in this argument, vis-a-vis, the facts and circumstances of this case, besides the points noted in the impugned judgment, was pointed out to the learned counsel he could not advance the contention any further.
Cited by 5 cases
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF 2003 CLC 1404
- AKBAR ALI and others vs LAL and others 1997 PLD Lahore 709
- SULTAN AHMAD Etc vs MEHR DIN Etc (K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 132)
- MAQBOOL KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD FEROZ KHAN 1993 CLC 51
- Mst. REHMAT BIBI and others vs Mst. JHANDO BIBI and others 1992 SCMR 1510