1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal is sought from the judgment dated 20th November, 1974 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a writ petition arising out of the disposal of a property under the Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was dismissed.
2. The facts as summarised by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the bearing are that one Muhammad Hussain (now deceased-predecessor-in---interest of respondents 5 to 9) was held entitled to the transfer of a shop (in dispute) and a house in December, 1959. On 17-5-1960, Muhammad Hussain entered into an association with Muhammad Ibrahim, respondent No. 4. The covenant between the contracting parties was that Muhammad Ibrahim was to pay the transfer price of both the shop and the house, but would be entitled to the transfer of half of the shop only.
3. The formal transfer of the shop in favour of Muhammad Hussain took place on 8-9-1961. Prior thereto Muhammad Hussain had on 9-6-1961, entered into another association with Muhammad Sharif petitioner regarding the shop in question, one of the terms whereof was that on payment of certain amount Muhammad Sharif was to become the owner of the entire shop.
4. The transfer in favour of Muhammad Hussain was challenged by one Abdul Aziz (not a party in this matter) in appeal, which was allowed on 5-5-1962. The shop in question was ordered to be auctioned.
5. Muhammad Hussain filed a revision and also sought deletion of the shop from the auction list.
6. During the pendency of the revision petition Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Ibrahim, the parties contesting for the shop, it is stated, were also impleaded as parties. The revision was ultimately decided in favour of Muhammad Hussain. The transfer of the shop was restored in his name. Earlier, the shop was also deleted from the list of auction. The revisional order passed in favour of Muhammad Hussain on 5-9-1967 contained a direction for the subordinate Settlement Authorities to the effect that the restoration of transfer of the shop to Muhammad Hussain would be subject to any association which he might have entered into with other persons the names of Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Ibrahim were specifically mentioned. On 21-10-1967 Muhammad Sharif entered into another association with the successor-in-interest of Muhammad Hussain, who had in the meanwhile died.
7. A controversy arose between the petitioner and Muhammad Ibrahim with regard to the implementation of the revisional order passed on 5-9-1967 ; that either association should be given preference over the other. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner decided this controversy in favour of Muhammad Sharif on 3-11-1967. Muhammad Ibrahim's appeal against the said order failed on 27-3-1968. He filed a revision petition, which was allowed on 9-8-1968. His association with Muhammad Hussain was upheld. The y petitioner 'then moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction. His petition was dismissed on 20th November, 1974. He then sought leave to appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended ; that Muhammad 'Ibrahim had not paid any amount towards the price of the property, which was the subject-matter of association agreement it included both the house and the shop, therefore, he was not entitled to any benefit under the association ; that when on the interjection by Abdul Aziz the transfer of the shop was cancelled from Muhammad Hussain's name on 5-5-1962, the association of Ibrahim with Muhammad Hussain came to an end specially so when Ibrahim did not take any step to get the transfer restored ; and that, in any case, the association of Ibrahim with Muhammad Hussain was premature because it came into existence nearly a year before the formal transfer of the shop to Muhammad Hussain.
9. It is not entirely correct that Ibrahim had not paid any amount in pursuance of the agreement of association. It is mentioned in order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 9-8-1968, which was impugned before the High Court, that the agreement of association between "Muhammad Hussain and Ibrahim was executed on 17-5-1960. It was attested on 24-5-1960, and the same having been filed in the relevant office was "approved on 2-8-1960." It is further mentioned in that order that "the adjustment of the amount against the transfer price of the 'shop was made in the com--pensation book of the present petitioner (Muhammad Ibrahim) on 24-5-1960, i. e. The day 'the deed of association was filed with the office." This statement of fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel. It appears that the formal transfer of the shop to Muhammad Hussain despite his entitlement having been determined, remained in flux for some tire. During that period the use of compensation book of Ibrahim might also have remained in suspense. That, however, would not make any 'difference in so far as the-intention of Ibrahim was concerned. He was not only wiling and ready to act upon the agreement of association, but also get the amount adjusted from his compensation book. The first contention of the learned counsel accordingly has no force.
10. It is true that after the cancellations of transfer of the shop from Muhammad Hussain---s name, Ibrahim did not make any effort (by himself) to get it restored, but it cannot be said that he was unaware of the efforts of Muhammad Hussain to get the property deleted from the auction list. Be that as it may, the criticism against Ibrahim would be leviable against Muhammad Sharif with equal force, because it was at the revisional stage in the first round that both Ibrahim and Muhammad Sharif sought permission to be impleaded as parties. Keeping in view the fact that the agreement,' agreements of association' had not by then resulted into the transfer of the property to either of the associates, the possibility cannot be excluded that both might have thought that it was the duty of Muhammad Hussain, the original transferee, to defend the transfer in his favour against the objection raised by Abdul Aziz. Thus Ibrahim cannot be blamed for his not having defended the title of Muhammad Hussain against Abdul Aziz.
11. It is also true that Abdul Aziz succeeded at one stage in getting the transfer cancelled from Muhammad Hussain's name, but that happened during the hierarchy of proceedings before the same Settlement Department which had earlier transferred the shop in dispute to Muhammad Hussain. It was in the same hierarchy of proceedings that ultimately Muhammad Hussain's revision succeeded in the original transfer of the shop in his name was restored to him. This could not be treated as new transfer, nor the earlier cancellation of the transfer would, in the circumstances of the case would mean the annulment of the association between Muhammad Hussain and Ibrahim, or in any 'way affect its validity.
12. The last argument of the learned counsel is also without force. It was raised before the High Court in almost the same form. The learned Single Judge dealt with the same as follows :-- ----------according to the instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner about association, the agreement can be accepted after a person is found entitled but before the order of transfer is passed. In this case Muhammad Hussain being in exclusive possession of the shop, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner or the Additional Settlement Commissioner should not have ignored the agreement particularly when the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 29thDecember, 1959, said that the shop will be transferred to Mohammad Hussain after the verification of his claim is decided."
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to urge anothing against the aforementioned view of the learned Judge of the High Court, in this behalf.
14. None of the contentions has any force.
15. This petition is accordingly dismissed.