Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.981 of 1985, heard on 11th February, 1986.

‑‑‑Para.24‑‑Sale of land‑‑Validity of sale‑‑Maxim‑"He who seeks equity must do equity"‑‑Father validly sold land to his sons, taken money and pocketed same‑‑ Vendees‑sons further sold that land validly to respondents and pocketed money‑‑Petitioner/father of subsequent vendors who had already disposed of land, held, had no right to say that sales were void so as to get back land, as in light of 'maxim' "He who seeks equity must do equity" that was inequitable to deprive respondents of their title.‑‑[Maxim.].

Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi and A. Karim Malik for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Respondents Nos.8 to 16.

Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th February, 1986.

.‑‑ According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner sold land in Lalupur, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara measuring 476 Kanals 17 Marlas through a registered sale‑deed, 'dated 5‑5‑1975 in favour of his sons respondents Nos. 1 to 7 and Muhammad Naqi who has died issueless subsequently. The petitioner executed another sale‑deed of the remaining area of 9 Kanals 18 Marlas .in favour of the aforesaid on 18‑6‑1975. Mutations Nos.100 and 101 were accordingly sanctioned on 31‑7‑1975. The petitioners vendee‑sons further sold the land to the respondents Nos.8 to 16. The petitioner filed an application saying that the sales in favour of his sons were in violation of para.24 of M.L.R. 115 and be declared as void with the result that the vendees of his sons respondents Nos.8 to 16 lose the title to the land purchased by them. Short of unnecessary details, finally an order has been passed by the learned Senior Member, Federal Land Commission on 21‑2‑1985 upholding the sales. The petitioner has invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the sales being violative of M.L.R.115, the same should be declared as void.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.8 to 16 has contended that the petitioner has no right to maintain a Constitutional petition in the circumstances. He has sold the land, taken the money and pocketed it and now he wants a declaration that the sales were void.

4. It is an age old maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity. It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner having sold the land to say that the sales were void so as to get back the land. His vendee‑sons have further sold the land to the respondents Nos. 8 to 16 and pocketed the money. It is inequitable to deprive the respondents of their title. The learned Senior Member, Federal Land Commission has justly set the wrong aright. His order is perfectly correct and in accordance with law. It calls for no interference in exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction. The petition is without merit altogether. It is dismissed with costs.

H . B . T . 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.