2024 SCLR 27
Other citations: 2023 SCP 381 = 2024 SCMR 150
[Supreme
Court of Pakistan]
Present:
Ijaz ul Ahsan, Ayesha A. Malik and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
Noorullah
and others—Petitioners
versus
Ghulam
Murtaza and others—Respondents
Civil
Appeal No. 17-Q of 2023, Civil Petition No. 257-Q of 2023 and CMA No. 230-Q of
2023, decided on 10th November, 2023.
(Against the
judgment dated 20.06.2023 of the High Court of Balochistan, Sibi Bench passed
in Civil Revisions No.85 and 86 of 2021)
HEADNOTE
Contract Act (IX of 1872) —
— S. 11 — Who
are competent to contract — Scope — Appellants/Petitioners claimed to have
purchased land from the respondents in 1986, but it was later revealed that
both respondents were minors at the time of the alleged sale — According to
Section 11 of the Contract Act, minors are incompetent to enter into legal sale
contracts of their property, rendering such transactions void — Furthermore,
the appellants/petitioners failed to provide evidence of the sale or prove the
execution of mutation — Supreme Court upheld the impugned judgment, finding
it legally sound and well-supported by evidence — Consequently, the cases
were dismissed as meritless, with no costs awarded. [Para. No. 7, 8, 9 & 10]
Jahan Zeb Khan Jadoon, Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant/
petitioner (in both cases).
Abdul Sattar Kakar, Advocate Supreme Court for respondents
nos. 1-5 (in both cases).
Muhammad Zareef, Naib Tehsildar and Shaukat Ali, Patwari
for the department.
Date of hearing: 10th November, 2023.
JUDGMENT
Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J:—Through
these (C.A. No. 17-Q of 2023 and
C.P. No.257-Q of 2023, fled under Articles 185 (2)(d) and 185(3) of the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, respectively)
having akin questions of law and facts, the appellants/petitioners have
assailed the judgment dated 20.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Balochistan,
Sibi Bench, whereby revision petitions filed by the respondents were decided in
the following terms:-
“For
afore discussion, the instant Civil Revision Petition No.85/2021 is partly
allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 22 December, 2018 passed by the
Trial Court and impugned judgment and decree dated 31 August, 2021 passed by
the Appellate Court are set aside. Suit Nos.117/2015 and 34/2016 instituted by
the petitioners are partly decreed. Petitioners are declared as owners of the
suit land bearing survey Nos. 269, 270 and 271 measuring 48 acres 0- Rod
0-Pole. Respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7 are directed to handover possession of the
decreed land to the petitioners. Mutation No.308(Ex:P/4) and contract of sale
dated 27 June, 2000 (Ex:D-9) are declared void and after handing over
possession of the suit land/decreed land to the petitioners, respondents are
perpetually restrained from any kind of interference. Petitioners’ suit
No.117/2015 to the extent of suit land bearing survey Nos. min 272 and 273 is
dismissed and to the extent of suit land bearing survey Nos. min 272 and 273,
the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in Civil Suit
No.90/2016 instituted by the respondents are upheld.”
2. Tersely, facts of the case are that
on 19.10.2015 and 02.03.2016, the respondents filed Civil Suits No. 117/2015 (for declaration, possession and correction
of entries in the revenue record and perpetual injunction) and 34/2016 (for declaration, cancelation of instrument
and perpetual injunction) against the appellants/petitioners, whereas on
17.06.2016, the appellants/petitioners filed Civil Suit No.90/2016 (for declaration and perpetual injunction)
against the respondents, which were consolidated by the trial Court. After
framing of issues and recording of the evidence, Suits No.117/2015 and 34/2016
were dismissed, whereas Suit No.90/2016 was decreed by the trial Court through
a consolidated judgment dated 22.12.2018.
3. Being aggrieved with the said
judgment, both the parties filed appeals before the District Judge, Jaffarabad,
which met the fate of dismissal vide
judgment dated 31.08.2021. Such decision, when assailed by the respondents
before the High Court by filing civil revisions, the same have been decided in
the terms mentioned above vide judgment
dated 20.06.2023, impugned herein.
4. Learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners states that the High Court has not appreciated the facts
so also the law in its true perspective; that the impugned judgment has been
passed without application of judicious mind; that the impugned judgment is
suffering from misreading and non-reading of material evidence available on the
record; that the respondents have no locus
standi to claim the ownership of the suit land falling in khasra Nos.269,
270 and 271 and that the impugned judgment is not tenable in the eyes of law.
5. Conversely, learned counsel
representing the respondents has faithfully defended the impugned judgment.
6. We have given anxious consideration
to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the
material available on the record with their able assistance.
7. The appellants/petitioners claimed
that the land in question falling in khasra Nos.269, 270 and 271 was purchased by
them from respondents on 02.09.1986 against a sale consideration of
Rs.2,45,000/- and since the respondents were reluctant to transfer the same,
thus a contract of sale was executed on 27.06.2000 vide mutation No.308 dated
11.08.2000.
The respondent (Ghulam
Murtaza), while recording his statement on 11.02.2017 before the trial
Court has mentioned his age as 45 years, which indicates that at the time of
purchase of land in 1986, he was fourteen years of age. Similarly, respondent (Nasreen) was also a minor in 1986,
therefore alleged sale of the land in question in this behalf is also void. For ease of reference, Section 11
of the Contract Act, 1872 reads as under:-
“Every
person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the
law to which he is subject and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified
from contracting by any law to which he is subject.”
It
is obvious that a minor is incompetent to enter into a legal sale contract of
his property, hence the sale transactions made were void. In 1986, the actual owner of the suit land was predecessor-in-interest
of the respondents, namely, Ahmed Khan, but neither any documentary proof of
such sale was adduced in the evidence nor any witness of the sale transaction
was produced during the case proceedings, thus how could the appellants/petitioners
purchase the suit land from the respondents in the afore-noted year.
8. It transpired from the record that
the alleged sale was made in 1986 when the respondents, Ghulam Murtaza and
Ghulam Mustafa, were minors. The appellants/petitioners have badly failed to
prove execution of mutation No.308 by summoning two attesting witnesses i.e.
Assistant Collector and the Patwari
as per Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. See Abdul Rasheed through L.Rs. and
others versus Manzoor Ahmed and others (PLD 2007 SC 287) and Muhammad
Muneer versus Mst. Feezan (PLD 2021 SC 538).
9. We are of the candid view that the
impugned judgment passed by the High Court has taken note of all aspects of the
matter, either legal or factual, and the inference drawn is duly supported not
only by the law but also by the record. The impugned judgment is well within
the remit of law and based on sound/cogent reasoning. Learned counsel for the
appellants/ petitioners has failed to point out any infirmity or illegality so
also misreading and non-reading of evidence on the record which could persuade
us to interfere in the impugned judgment.
10. For what has been discussed above,
these cases being meritless are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order accordingly