' This petition under section 115, C. P. C. Calls in question the legality and propriety of the order, dated 5-5-1982 of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad whereby, he dismissed petitioners' appeal against the order dated 6-4-1982 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad dismissing petitioners' application for temporary injunction.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that Abdul Aziz, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was a permit-holder for the allotment of land in lieu of his land resumed in Gujranwala District. He obtained allotment of land in dispute in part settlement of a part of , his entitlement and executed agreement dated 13-5-1974 for sale of V his rights in the property and the permit, for consideration of Rs, 45,000. He delivered possession of the land to the petitioners.
Abdul Aziz died and has been survived by his heirs. The petitioners apprehending their ejectment instituted suit for declaration against the heirs of Abdul Aziz, the respondents herein to the effect, that they are in possession of the suit property under the aforesaid agreement. They also sought injunction as a consequential relief restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession.
They also prayed for temporary injunction pending disposal of their suit.
' The learned Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad vide his order dated 6-4-1982 rejected their application for temporary injunction holding that the agreement to sell was not enforcible in view of the bar contained in clause 14 of the Scheme under which the grantee had obtained the allotment of the land in dispute read with section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
The respondents feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order unsuccessfully challenged the same in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned lower Courts misconstrued the relevant provisions of law while holding that the agreement to sell was not enforcible. It was submitted that the petitioners have come into possession of the land in pursuance of the agreement to sell and their possession is protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act against the heirs of Abdul Aziz deceased. Reliance was placed on Bachu Balf E. Dinshaw v.
Commissioner of Income-tax (1) and Manzoor Hnssain v. Shah Jahan (2).
4. Mr. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar on behalf of the respondents opposed this petition and contended that the agreement to sell without the approval of the Collector/Commissioner being hit by the provisions of clause 14 of the Scheme read with section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 is not enforcible, the petitioners have prima facie case in their favour He relied on Abdul Shakoor v. A. S. Tasneem (3) in support of his submission.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders passed by the learned lower Courts. In Bachu Balf's case it was held that when law requires a mode of transfer to confer title by means of registered instrument, title for ownership cannot be conferred by mere agreement of parties. Mere possession of a party under an agreement to sell does not confer upon the transferee a right of ownership and the ownership vests in the transferor for the purposes of assessment of his income under the Income-tax Act XI of 1922. This case is of .No help to the petitioners because the title in the property vested in the transferor or persons claiming under him. As far as the next case viz. The Pakistan Employees Co- operative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi v. Mst. Anwar Sultana (4) is concerned it is pointed out that in that case there were two suits in which the plaintiff in one case, was defendant in the other. He was lessee in possession but his lease deed was unregistered. It was held that he could protect his possession on the basis of unregistered lease deed on the principle as contained under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. In the instant case,
(I) PLD 1967 Kar. 322 (2) PLD 1975 Quetta 22
(3) 1974 SCMR 463 (4) PLD 1969 Kar. 474 however, the agreement to sell prima facie is hit by the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 read with clause 14 of the relevant Scheme prohibiting the sale of the property by the grantee without the approval of the Collector/ Commissioner.
6. Manzoor Bussain's case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners recognizes the principle that even if the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act are not in force in a particular area its principles followed as a rule of justice. It was also held therein that the provisions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act do not create any title in favour of the transferee but transferee's right of possession is protected. There is no dispute on the principle laid down in the above-cited case but the question remains that if the agreement to sell itself is not enforceable under the law, whether the petitioners could have a prima facie case in their favour to enforce such right by instituting a suit against the respondents and entitled to temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession. In Abdul Shakoor's case referred by the learned counsel for the respondents it was held by the Supreme Court that section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 being clearly applicable to the matter the respondents were within their rights in pointing out that the contract on which the petitioners were basing their claim was void under the law. It was further, held that the petitioners in that case had no prima facie case in law and they could not succeed in obtaining injunction merely on the ground that they were in possession and had spent huge money on the development of the land in dispute.
In the instant case also the agreement to sell is ostensibly hit by the provisions of clause 14 of the Scheme read with section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 according to which the land allotted to the grantee cannot be alienated without the approval of Collector/Commissioner. The petitioners, therefore, have no prima facie case and the unanimous orders passed by the learned lower Courts in exercise of their discretion refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners are not liable to interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
7. In the result this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.