Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 173 of 1973, decided on 11th March 1974.

(From the judgment and order, dated 16‑2‑1973 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No. 1155 of 1963).

‑‑ S. 20‑Confirmation of sale by evacuee‑Sale of land made by evacuee on 21‑5‑1947‑Required confirmation by Custodian for its effectiveness‑Title could not vest in purchaser in absence of such confirmation.

‑‑ S. 20 read with Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, 1950 Confirmation of sale by Custodian Limitation‑Period of sixty days Prescribed for filing application for confirmation‑Sale made by evacuee on 21‑5‑1947 and application for confirmation filed on 19‑7‑1960‑Application, held, rightly adjudged to be barred by limitation‑Sale, in circumstances inchoate and ineffective.‑‑[Limitation].

S. A. Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sir. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 11^th March 1974.

MUAMMAD GUL, J

.‑--This petition for special leave is from an order dated 16‑2‑1973 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dismissing Writ Petition No. 1155 of 1963, moved by the petitioner herein.

The dispute relates to property No. 1761, Ward No. 8, Multan City. The petitioner claimed to be transferee in possession of this property under a registered sale-deed dated 16‑6‑1951,executed in his favour by Mst. Allah Wasai, who in turn was a transferee of the property from a non‑Muslim named Seth Mool Chand under a registered sale-deed dated 21‑5‑1947. It is alleged by the petitioner that after the sale in his favour be gave the property on rent to one Ghulam Muhammad against whom he obtained ejectment order in October 1953. .'But the proceedings for ejectment proved abortive, because the relevant Ordinance under which the ejectment proceedings" were initiated lapsed In the meantime and further that Ghulam Muhammad collusively delivered possession of the property to Sh. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din (since deceased, now represented by respondents 4 to 16 herein). The petitioner then sued both Ghulam Muhammad and Sh. Muaaffar‑ud‑Din for possession of property, in the in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Multan, who forwarded the case to the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, Multan for determina tion of evacuee interest in the property.

To got over the bar created by section 20 of Act XII of 1957, the petitioner also separately moved the Deputy Custodian by means of an application dated 18-7-1960, for the confirmation of the sale dated 21‑5‑1947, executed by Seth Mool Chand in favour of Mst. Allah Wasai from whom the petitioner had purchased the property. In these proceedings, Sh. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din on his application was also made a party, on the allegations made by him that the property in dispute which was a part of a larger property was‑mortgaged with possession by its original owners, Allah Wasaya etc. to Khenamal etc., in the year 1888 for Rs. 375, and that the heirs of the original mortgagors filed a suit for redemption which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 25‑3‑1959. It was also alleged that during the pendency of that suit, Sh. Muzaffar-ud‑Din purchased the equity of redemption in the suit property from Manzur Ahmad one of the heirs of the original muslim mortgagors and subsequently, he and other heirs of the mortgagors obtained decree for redemption; of their respective shares in the property and on deposit of the mortgage amount in Court obtained possession of the disputed property to proceedings before the Deputy Custodian the transfer of equity of redemption and the decree of redemption of the property in dispute were confirmed by order dated 3‑7‑1960.

However, the Deputy Custodian dismissed the petitioner's application for confirmation of the sale in favour of hits predecessor‑in‑interest Mst. Allah Wasai, as barred by limitation.

The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Deputy Custodian dismissing his application for confirmation of sale in favour of Mst. Allah Wasai, making only Mool Chand and the Deputy Custodian as the respondents. The learned Custodian by order dated 24‑10‑1962, dismissed the petitioner's appeal maintaining the order of the Deputy Custodian by which the petitioner's application was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Aggrieved by the order of the Custodian, the petitioner filed writ petition, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by toe impugned order on the ground that the Custodian rightly held the petitioner 's application before the Deputy Custodian for confirmation as barred by limitation. It was further held that the sale by Seth Mool Chand in favour. of Mst. Allah Wasai not having been confirmed by the Custodian could note be the foundation of title A in favour of the petitioner under sale by Mst. Allah Wasai.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not seriously question the finding of the learned Single Judge which on their, facts set out above were unexceptional. It is not denied that Seth Mool Chand was an evacuee and the sale in favour of Mst. Allah Wasai having taken, place on 21‑5‑1947 for its effectiveness required confirmation by the Custodian under section 20 of Act XII of 1957 which was never done. The Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, 1950 which came into force on the 24th August, 1950 (and were preserved in force) provided a limitation of sixty days in filing ant application for confirmation. This period expired on 25‑10‑1950, but the application by the petitioner was not presented until 18‑7‑1960, that is to say, after a lapse of more khan 10 years. Thus the petitioner's title in the property in dispute under the sale in his favour by Allah Wasai remained inchoate and ineffective. On the other hand, Sh. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din not only succeeded in gaining possession of the property in dispute but alas succeeded in getting the decree of redemption after the sale of equity of redemption in his favour, both the transactions being duly confirmed by the Deputy Custodian and the Custodian.

For the foregoing reasons there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.