DOST MUHAMMAD and others vs GHAUS MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a revision petition concerning the ownership of agricultural land. The dispute arose from conflicting claims of ownership: the petitioners claimed title based on an arbitration award and a subsequent court decree declaring them owners via an alleged gift from their predecessor, Hafiz Muhammad Hussain. Conversely, the respondents asserted title based on a prior family settlement made by the same predecessor. The core legal question was whether the arbitration award and subsequent decree, which excluded the respondents, could override the prior family settlement. The Supreme Court held that the arbitration proceedings were collusive and that the predecessor, having already transferred the land via family settlement, lacked the capacity to gift it. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that oral family settlements of agricultural land in non-municipal areas of Punjab are valid and not subject to the registration requirements of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The petition was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' findings that the prior family settlement was binding and the subsequent gift was ineffective.
- Whether an arbitration award and subsequent court decree obtained collusively can override a prior valid family settlement?
- Can a predecessor-in-interest gift property that has already been transferred via a family settlement?
- Is a written and registered deed mandatory for a family settlement of agricultural land situated outside municipal limits in Punjab?
- Section 54, Transfer of Property Act 1882
- Registration Act 1908
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 16-5-2000 of the Lahore High Court through which revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Hafiz Muhammad Hussain, deceased predecessor-in-interest of the parties was the owner of the land in dispute who during his life time transferred the same to the children from his two wives in specific share which according to Mahomedan Law would have inherited by them. The present petitioners appear to have filed a suit against Hafiz Muhammad Hussain, their father alleging that he had gifted the land in its entirety to them which dispute was referred to the arbitration of Nazar Muhammad who delivered award and the present petitioners were declared to be owners on the basis of the said alleged gift. Hafiz Muhammad Hussain made statement before the Court where the said suit in which reference was made to arbitration was pending that he had no objection if the said award was made rule of the Court upon which the said Court passed order accordingly on 25-7-1978.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that in view of the said award having been made rule of the Court, the petitioners should have been declared as owners of the land in the present proceedings.
4. Learned counsel when questioned admitted that the respondents were neither made party in the said previous suit in which arbitration took place nor they were even otherwise heard before the award was made rule of the Court. If Hafiz Muhammad Hussain as has been found by the Courts below had already transferred the property by way of family settlement to his heirs from both the wives, he ceased to be the A owner thereof, therefore, any gift allegedly made by him even if had been proved would be of no effect upon the previous disposal on the basis of which the parties had become the owners of the disputed land, apart from the fact that the proceedings in the said suit in which arbitration was made appear to be not bona fide but collusive.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Hafiz Muhammad Hussain by way of family settlement could not orally transfer the land to his heirs from the two wives except through a document which should have been registered under the Registration Act. When questioned, he admitted that the land in dispute is agricultural and is not situated within the limits of Municipal Committee or Town Committee and the provisions of Transfer of Property Act requiring sale of immovable property of the value of Rs,100 to be made through written sale-deed duly registered had not been made applicable to such areas in Punjab which are not within the municipal limits regarding disposal of agricultural land, therefore, disposal of the same by way of family settlement by Hafiz Muhammad Hussain was not open to any legal objection.
6. The judgments impugned in this petition of the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and .
Cited by 2 cases
- ABDULLAH HANIF Versus BAKHSH 2018 CLCN 41
- KHALID MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2011 PTD 1052