1987 PLP 891 (SCMR)
BAHADUR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SALEH MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 891 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Mian Burhanuddin Mian and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BAHADUR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SALEH MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 891 (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 1987 PLP 891 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Mian Burhanuddin Mian and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 891 (SCMR) (BAHADUR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SALEH MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, dated 2‑3‑1981 in Regular Second Appeal No. 104 of 1968). ‑‑S. 21‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.100‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Respondent's suit for pre‑emption dismissed by Trial Court and decreed in appeal on basis of concession made by petitioners' counsel that respondent was an owner in estate‑‑Same position was confirmed in petitioners' second appeal‑‑Plea that Second Appellate Court should not have accepted petitioners' counsel's admission on facts as against findings of fact reached by Trial Court on consideration of documentary evidence, repelled‑‑Question raised relating to findings of fact and there being no material on record to show that petitioners' counsel did not make admission of facts with full responsibility, same and one of petitioners' admission held, was rightly relied upon by Appellate Court‑‑There being no jurisdiction for interference, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal against judgment, dated 2‑3‑1981 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' /vendees' Second Appeal arising out of a pre‑emotion decree passed in favour of the respondent, was dismissed.
2. The respondent's suit for pre‑emotion on the ground that he was owner in the estate while the petitioners/ vendees had no such qualification, was dismissed by the trial Court. Respondent's appeal before the High Court, however, succeeded on a concession made by the petitioners' counsel that the respondent was an owner in the estate. Same position having been confirmed by the High Court on petitioners' second appeal, they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has raised two contentions; firstly, that the second Appellate Court should not have accepted the petitioners' counsel's admission on fact as against findings of fact reached by the trial Court on consideration of the documentary evidence; and secondly, that one of the petitioners/ vendees‑‑Bahadar, being himself an owner in the estate, to the extent of his share in the purchase, the suit of the respondent should have been dismissed and the principle of sinker should not have been applied; because the two petitioners had purchased the land in dispute in two independent divisible transactions.,
4. Both the questions relate to findings of fact. There is no material on record to show that the petitioners' counsel did not make admission of fact with full responsibility. The same and Mahboob petitioner's admission, having rightly been relied upon by the Appellate Court, there is no justification for interference by this Court on the first ground raised by the learned counsel.
5. On the second point, the finding of the High Court is that the transaction was indivisible and that the amount had also been paid jointly by the two petitioners. On examination of entries in the mutation the observation of the High Court does not seem to be other against any law or principle. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. M.I. /B‑6/S Petition dismissed.