' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners claim leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment, dated 2-3-1999 in, R.S.A. No,634 of 1979 dismissing petitioners appeal against concurrent findings of fact in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by respondent No, 1 .
2. Facts of the case succinctly stated appear to be that through a registered sale-deed Exh.P-I dated 16-6-1970 petitioners Nos.1 to 7 sold 1746 Kanals, 17 Marlas of land out of their total holding comprising of 1792 Kanals, 10 Marlas in favour of respondent No,1, the petitioners and respondents Nos.21 to 26. On the basis of aforesaid sale transaction mutation Exh.P-2 was entered in the Revenue Record but the sale being apparently in violation of Martial Law Regulation No,64, it was rejected. Respondent No,I as one of the vendees brought a suit for permanent injunction to have the sale deed annulled. There were two sets of defendants in the suit one who admitted the claim of respondent No,1 and the other comprising of vendors who contested the claim. Contesting defendants, though admitted transaction of sale through registered conveyance deed, nevertheless, contended that the vendees were bound by the transaction which was valid inter se.
Certain preliminary objections were raised which were reflected in the issues settled by the trial Court. On conclusion of the trial, trial Court held that the sale being in contravention of the MLR-64 was void ab initio. The findings of fact were upheld in the First Appeal by District Judge, Muzaffargarh. On its part High Court also upheld the findings in R.S.A. Which have been impugned in this petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for The parties and with their assistance gone through the record. Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that irrespective of the fact whether the sale transaction was effected in contravention of MLR-64 the transaction was valid and binding qua the parties to the conveyance deed and it was for the Federal Land Commission or the authorities constituted under MLR-64 to take an exception to the validity or otherwise of the sale. In any event jurisdiction of the Civil Court was expressly barred thus the Courts below including the High Court suffered from misconception of law by taking cognizance of the issue and deciding the nature of the sale transaction. We may refer to the cases reported as Mst. Raj Bibi v. Additional Chief Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore (PLD 1975 Lahore 408), Nasir Ahmad Khan v. Mst. Ismat Jehan Begum (1968 SCM R 667) and Mst. Zohran Khatoon v. Member, Federal Land Commission (1985 SCM R 312) in which this question has been exhaustively dealt with by the superior Courts. This view has been followed in cases subsequently decided by this Court.
4. Question of law thus raised needs examination by this Court as, prima facie, it appears that the Courts below exercised their jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of law and the judgments of this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted, inter alia, to examine the aforesaid question of law.