1999 PLP 866 (CLC)
Mst. HALEEM KHATOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 866 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Jamshed Ali, J |
| Parties | Mst. HALEEM KHATOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 866 (CLC)?
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 1999 PLP 866 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Jamshed Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 866 (CLC) (Mst. HALEEM KHATOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th June, 1998
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 21‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑‑Suit for pre emption by rival pre‑emptors ‑‑‑Superior rights of pre‑emption‑‑ Determination‑‑‑Two rival pre‑emptors filed separate pre‑emption suits against vendee of said land‑‑‑Trial Court decreed suit filed by plaintiff/petitioner holding her to be a co‑sharer in said land‑‑‑On filing appeal by rival pre emptor/respondent, Appellate Court finding plaintiff/petitioner to be an owner of estate, a status equal to rival pre‑emptor/respondent, modified decree passed by Trial Court in terms that both pre‑emptors would share suit land equally‑‑ Rival pre‑emptor/respondent in evidence before Trial Court had admitted that plaintiff/petitioner was a co‑sharer in suit land and Jamabandi in respect of suit land for relevant year had also shown that plaintiff/petitioner was co‑sharer in suit land, but Appellate Court below had altogether ignored that fact‑‑‑High Court allowing revision, set aside judgment and*decree of Appellate Court below and restored judgment and decree of Trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
Land measuring 26 Kanals situated in Mauza Nara Shamali Tehsil and District Khushab was owned by Sher Bahadar. He had purchased this land in open auction followed by Mutation No.207 attested on 30‑4‑1969 (Exh.P.4) vide Mutation No.209 attested on 10‑5‑1969 (Exh.P.3), it was sold to Dost Muhammad respondent. Against the said sale the present petitioner and respondent Sultan Bibi filed separate pre‑emption suits. These suits were consolidated. The vendee contested the suits, necessary issues were framed and the suits were tried.
2. Vide judgment, dated 16‑12‑1982 of the learned trial Court the petitioner was held to be a co‑sharer and Sultan Bibi, the rival pre‑emptor, was found to the owner of the estate. The suit filed by the petitioner was, accordingly, decreed and in case of her failure to deposit sale consideration by the given date. Mst. Sultan Bibi was entitled to the decree. 3.Against the said judgment and decree not only Mst. Sultan Bibi, the rival pre‑emptor, but also Dost Muhammad, the vendee, filed two appeals. Vide judgment and decree, dated 3‑5‑1984 of the learned District Judge, Khushab, both the appeals of the vendee were dismissed. However, the appeal of Mst. Sultan Bibi was allowed. The learned First Appellate Court held the petitioner to be an owner of the estate, a status equal to Mst. Sultan Bibi, the rival pre emptor. Accordingly, the decree was modified in terms that the two pre‑emptors will share equally, the disputed land.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the findings of learned District Judge primarily on the ground of non‑reading of material evidence. He particularly referred to that part of the statement of Mst. Sultan Bibi wherein the petitioner was admitted to be a co‑sharer.
5. I have examined the record carefully. Jamabandi for 1970‑71 (Exh.P.2) shows the petitioner as a co‑sharer in Khata No.
1. This has been rejected by the learned District Judge on the ground that it does not establish that the petitioner was a co‑sharer in the Khata on the date of sale i.e. 10‑5‑1969.
6. On examination of the record, it has been found that sale in favour of Sher Bahadar, the vendor, through public auction, was of a fraction of joint Khata No. L As per entries of Mutation No.207 (Exh.P.4) the share auctioned from Khata No. l belonged to Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Hayat, brothers of the petitioner. This fact has been conceded by the rival pre‑emptor Mst. Sultan Bibi who appeared in the witness‑box as D. W.1. The share purchased by Sher Bahadar in Khata No. l was sold by him vide Mutation No.209 (Exh.P.3). This sale was also from Khata No.l. Jamabandi Exh.P.2. for 1970‑71 also relates to Khata No. 1 in which the petitioner has been mentioned as co‑sharer. Mst. Sultan Bibi, the rival pre‑emptor, while appearing as. D.W.1 clearly admitted that the petitioner was a co‑sharer alongwith her brothers Muhammad Hayat and Muhammad Khan. The effect of Exhs.P.3 and P.4 and the admission of Mst. Sultan Bibi was altogether ignored by the learned District Judge, Bhakkar Exh.P.I (Jamabandi for 1970‑71) read with Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4 and the admission of Mst. Sultan Bibi, clearly establish the petitioner as A a co‑sharer.
8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Khushab are set aside and the decree of the learned trial Court is restored. H.B.T./H‑72/L Revision petition allowed