Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision Side No. 16 of 1954‑55, decided on 19th October 1955, District Attock.
S. 53‑Suit by land lord against occupancy tenant to set aside transfer of occupancy rights compromised‑Decree should be in accordance with com promise‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. X XIII and rr. 1 and 3.
Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioner.
‑The facts briefly are that Roshan and Fateh Ali, two occupancy tenants sold their occupancy rights in the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners, Abdul Khaliq etc. The landlords Maula Bux and Aurangzeb brought two suits for cancellation of the sale and protracted litigation followed. Finally a decree was passed by the Assistant Collector, setting aside the alienations and granting possession to the entire proprietary body of the village. The Commis sioner in revision found that the occupancy tenancy fell under section 5 (2) of the Act but as no notices of the alienation were sent by the tenants to the landlords he maintained the decrees of the lower Court and dismissed the revision petitions. Second revisions have now been filed and the main ground taken up is that the parties had effected a compromise and the Commissioner should have followed the mandatory provisions of O. XXIII, Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil P. C., and awarded decrees in accordance with the compromise. The two landlords have also made an application to the same effect stating that they had effected a compromise a: mentioned above and according to this compromise they withdrew the two suits which they have requested should be dismissed. Under these circumstances an order is passed accordingly, so that the two suits brought by the landlords fog cancellation of the sales stand dismissed.
A. H. Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer