RAZIA BEGUM vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III) BOARD OF REVENUE O — 2024 CLC 1910 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

RAZIA BEGUM VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III) BOARD OF REVENUE O.XXI, R.32---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.42(1)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Decree for specific performance, implementation of---Procedure---Execution proceedings---Revenue Authorities, powers of---Scope---Petitioners filed constitutional petition as Member Board of Revenue while accepting the revision filed by respondents set- aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) in their (petitioners') favour and restored the orders of review (cancellation) of mutation on the basis of decree for specific performance for having been incorporated directly by the Revenue Authorities i.e. without resorting to Executing/Civil Court---Question arose as to whether decree of specific performance could be implemented in the revenue record directly through mutation or it could be enforced only through filing of an execution petition?---Contention of the petitioners was that Revenue Officer was duty bound to incorporate said decree in the revenue record, through sanctioning of mutation---Validity---No doubt, the decree granted by the Civil Court is binding on the Revenue Authorities and they are bound by the law to give effect to the decree and change entries in the revenue record in accordance with the rights of the parties as determined by the Civil Court---However, S. 42(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, provides that process of mutation would start from the time when a transaction of transfer (acquisition) of right in the property has been effected through inheritance etc. or otherwise such as decree of Civil Court---Decree for specific performance (of an agreement with regard to sale of the property) by itself does not transfer the title, as such decree only declares the right of decree-holder to have the property transferred in his favour covered by the decree, and so long as the sale- deed is not executed in his favour by the judgment-debtor or by the Court, the title of the property remains vested in the judgment-debtor---Unless the title in the immovable property is transferred by means of a registered sale deed, it cannot be deemed to have been transferred irrespective of the fact that an agreement to sell has been executed and a decree for its specific performance has also been passed---Purpose of the decree of specific performance is to get the sale-deed executed and procure possession in accordance with the condition mentioned therein, and so long as the sale deed is not executed in favour of the decree holder either by the judgment-debtor or by the Court, the title in the property vests in the judgment-debtor---Thus, in order to get title of the property on the basis of a decree for specific performance, the decree holder has to file an execution petition by invoking provision of O. XXI, R. 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with decrees for specific performance, restitution of conjugal rights and injunction---It provides various modes and steps for execution of said types of decree---By executing the decree for specific performance not only a sale deed is executed in favour of decree-holder but the possession is delivered as well subject to conditions as mentioned in the agreement/decree---Decree for specific performance enjoins the parties to perform their part of agreement and on their failure to do so, Court itself performs those obligations by carrying out the act subject to conditions as mentioned in the agreement/decree---Decree for specific performance can not be directly implemented in the revenue record without indulgence of the executing court , who on execution of the decree shall get the sale deed executed in favour of the decree-holder and deliver the possession in accordance with the agreement/decree---Of course, after execution of sale deed , the revenue authorities would be bound to give it effect in the revenue record---Member Board of Revenue while accepting the revision filed by respondents had rightly set- aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) in their (petitioners') favour, and restored the orders of review (cancellation) of mutation---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1910 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE RAZIA BEGUM VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III) BOARD OF REVENUE Decree, enforcement of---Limitation---Decree never dies but the restriction of limitation always becomes a barrier for the enforcement of the decree through execution after prescribed period of limitation, however, it does not extinguish the right or title based on the decree---Decree does not lose its utility for not having been effected within the period of limitation. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1910 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE RAZIA BEGUM VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III) BOARD OF REVENUE S. 148---Decree passed with condition to deposit remaining consideration amount within stipulated period---Extension in stipulated time---Scope---Court, powers of---Decree passed in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners was conditional subject to payment of remaining consideration amount within a period of one month and on failure to deposit the remaining consideration amount, the suit would be deemed to have been dismissed---There was no proof/material on record which might suggest that predecessor of the petitioners fulfilled the said condition as it was not established on the record at all if such deposit was ever made---Trial Court could not enlarge the period for deposit of remaining consideration amount under section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, after the lapse of stipulated period of one month---Jurisdiction with the Trial Court was available only within the stipulated period of one month---Moment such period of one month was over, it ceased to have jurisdiction and became functus officio, in view of the condition incorporated in the decree---In such eventuality the decree passed by the Trial Court could only have been challenged by the plaintiff in appeal and the Appellate Court was competent to allow an application seeking extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration, if justifiable grounds were found---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

RAZIA BEGUM vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III) BOARD OF REVENUE O — 2024 CLC 1910 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC