1994 PLP 559 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAEEM and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 559 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Afzal Lone, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAEEM and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 559 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 559 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Afzal Lone, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 559 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAEEM and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khaki‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Zakiuddin Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 11‑12‑1979 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No. 807 of 1979). ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Superior right of pre emption ‑‑‑Quantum of proof‑‑‑Plaintiffs in proof of their superior right of pre emption led no evidence except pedigree‑table which was submitted by their counsel‑‑‑No one from the side of plaintiffs, appearing in witness‑box to prove contents of pedigree‑table‑‑‑All the Courts below including High Court granting decree of pre‑emption in favour of plaintiffs on basis of pedigree- table‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Where plaintiffs' counsel had merely tendered copy of pedigree‑table showing plaintiffs' relationship with vendor in proof of preferential right of pre‑emption without there being any evidence to show that pedigree‑table pertained to plaintiffs (pre‑emptors), their suit could not be decreed. ‑‑Judgments and decrees of Courts below were set aside and plaintiffs' suit was dismissed in circumstances.‑‑‑[Evidence]. Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Khan 1989 SCMR 1026 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑‑This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances: The appellants purchased land measuring 35 Kanals 18 Marlas in Mauza Kot Hashmat, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala from Mst. Inayat Bibi daughter of Muhammad Din far a consideration of Rs.14,118 through a registered sale‑deed dated 7‑9‑1972. The respondents filed a suit for pre‑emption claiming preferential right to purchase. Relevant Issue No.l was framed to the following effect: "Whether the plaintiffs have got superior right of pre‑emption?" Finding that in favour of the plaintiffs‑respondents, the suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Hafizabad vide judgment and decree dated 17‑7‑1975. Appellants‑vendees' first appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala vide judgment and decree dated 31‑5‑1979 and their Regular Second Appeal No.807 of 1979 by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court vide judgment and decree dated 11‑12‑1979.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that excepting producing pedigree‑tables through a counsel the plaintiffs‑respondents led no evidence whatsoever to prove that they were related to the vendor to have the superior right of pre‑emption as alleged by them. Learned counsel referred to Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Khan, (1989 SCMR 1026) and submitted that where the pre‑emptors had merely tendered a copy of pedigree‑table showing their relationship with vendor in proof of preferential right of pre emption without there being any evidence to show that such pedigree‑tables pertained to the pre‑emptors, the suit was dismissed. In the case in hand, the learned counsel submitted that no witness at all, not even the plaintiffs respondents appeared in support of the preferential claim to say as to how the plaintiffs were related to the vendor. Even the pedigree‑tables were not produced by them. Only their learned counsel tendered the same in Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in view of the record could not controvert the contention.
4. In view of the above circumstances and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever on behalf of the plaintiffs‑respondents to say that they were related to the vendor their suit could not be decreed. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. But the parties are left to bear their own costs. AA./M‑1865/S. Appeal accepted.