1986 PLP 855 (CLC)
Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 855 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 855 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 855 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 855 (CLC) (Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. M. A. Pirzada for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th March, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 30‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 10‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑ Limitation‑‑Starting time‑‑Sale of suit land was affected through registered sale‑deed‑‑Suit land being undivided share in Khata, was not capable of physical possession prior to registration of sale‑deed‑ Limitation, held, was to be governed by Art. 10, Limitation Act, 1908 and not under S.30, Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913‑‑Limitation could not run from date of physical possession of any of vendees‑‑Suit having been filed within one year of registration of sale‑deed, was therefore, quite within time. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 10‑‑Constructive possession of pre‑empted land delivered to husband of vendee, held, would not tantamount to physical possession within meaning of Article 10, Limitation Act, 1908.
Judgment & Decree
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since physical possession of the suit land was taken by the vendee/ petitioner on 20‑5‑1980, therefore, the suit filed on 12‑4‑1982 was barred by time. The learned counsel further submitted that the statements made by the plaintiff, Nazir Ahmad D.W.1, Nabi Bakhsh D.W.2, Qadir Bakhsh D.W.3, Zia‑ud‑Din D.W.5 and Zubeda Bibi D.W.6 wherein they stated that the physical possession of the suit land was delivered much before the registration of the sale‑deed, have been misread by the Courts below.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care and have not been able to persuade myself) to agree with him. I find that the sale was effected through registered sale‑deed, dated 22‑11‑1981; that the suit for possession by pre‑emption was filed on 12‑4‑1982 i.e within 5 months; that since instrument of sale is registered, therefore, the limitation is governed by Article 10 A of the Limitation Act and not under section 30 of the Pre‑emption Act: that the suit land being undivided share in Khata, was not capable of physical possession at the time of the registration of sale‑deed prior to that, and as such, the limitation in the instant case could not run from the date of physical possession, if any, of the vendee /petitioner on 20‑5‑1980 as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant provisions of law may be reproduced advantageously:‑ Art. 10. "To enforce a right of One year. When the purchase takes, pre‑emption, whether the under the sale sought to right is founded on law, be impeached, physical or general usage, or on possession of the whole of special contract. the property sold, or, where the subject of the sale does not admit of physical possession, when the instrument of sale is registered." The suit having been filed within one year of registration, was quite within time. The learned counsel has failed to point out any 1B misreading/non‑reading of material evidence by the Courts below affecting their judgments. Document EXh.D.l, relied on by the learned counsel also shows that constructive possession of the land was delivered to the husband of Mst. Zubeda Begum, vendee/ petitioner which does not tantamount to physical possession within the meaning of Article 10 of the Limitation Act, and as such, there is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.For what has been stated above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed in limine. H . B . T . Revision Petition dismissed.