1987 PLP 2057 (SCMR)
NOOR MUHAMMAD and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji SHAHAMAND and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2057 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Suit of respondent for pre‑emption decreed by Trial Court and its judgment uphold by District Judge and High Court‑‑Contention of petitioners that they had taken over possession of disputed property before attestation of mutation and if date of taking over possession was regarded as terminus a quo for limitation, the suit was out of time‑‑Finding of Trial Court and First Appellate Court that there was no reliable evidence to support assertion of petitioners not shown to be suffering from any infirmity‑‑High Court very properly declining to interfere with such finding‑ Concurrent finding of Courts below on controversy relating to question of fact regarding computation of price also going against petitioners and High Court upholding same‑‑No basis found for taking a different view in matter‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑ Pre‑emption. |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji SHAHAMAND and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2057 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2057 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Suit of respondent for pre‑emption decreed by Trial Court and its judgment uphold by District Judge and High Court‑‑Contention of petitioners that they had taken over possession of disputed property before attestation of mutation and if date of taking over possession was regarded as terminus a quo for limitation, the suit was out of time‑‑Finding of Trial Court and First Appellate Court that there was no reliable evidence to support assertion of petitioners not shown to be suffering from any infirmity‑‑High Court very properly declining to interfere with such finding‑ Concurrent finding of Courts below on controversy relating to question of fact regarding computation of price also going against petitioners and High Court upholding same‑‑No basis found for taking a different view in matter‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑ Pre‑emption. bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal 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 2057 (SCMR) (NOOR MUHAMMAD and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji SHAHAMAND and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 13‑7‑1987 of the Lahore High Court in C.R. No.1095/D of 1987). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Suit of respondent for pre‑emption decreed by Trial Court and its judgment uphold by District Judge and High Court‑‑Contention of petitioners that they had taken over possession of disputed property before attestation of mutation and if date of taking over possession was regarded as terminus a quo for limitation, the suit was out of time‑‑Finding of Trial Court and First Appellate Court that there was no reliable evidence to support assertion of petitioners not shown to be suffering from any infirmity‑‑High Court very properly declining to interfere with such finding‑ Concurrent finding of Courts below on controversy relating to question of fact regarding computation of price also going against petitioners and High Court upholding same‑‑No basis found for taking a different view in matter‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑[ Pre‑emption].
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J‑.‑‑This petition for Special Leave to Appeal arises out of a pre‑emption suit brought by the respondents. The Trial Court decreed the suit and its judgment was upheld by the District Judge and the High Court.
2. In support of this petition two contentions have been raised. One relates to limitation. It is not disputed that if the date of attestation of the mutation is taken as the starting point for limitation the suit brought by the respondents would be within time. The petitioners case is that they had taken over possession of the property in dispute long before the attestation of the mutation and if the date of taking over the possession was regarded as the terminus a quo for limitation, the suit was out of time. On this point, the trial Court and the first appellate Court have found that there was no reliable evidence to support the assertion of the petitioners that they had taken over possession under the sale prior to the attestation of the mutation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show us that their finding suffers from any infirmity. The High Court very properly declined to interfere with this finding.
3. The second contention of the petitioners is that the Courts below have erred in computing the price at which the pre‑emptors should have been permitted to acquire the land in dispute. This controversy too relates to a question of fact. The concurrent finding of the subordinate Courts on this question is against the petitioners and the High Court has after examining the evidence upheld it. We find no basis for taking a different view in the matter.
4. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused. S. Q./N‑30/S Leave refused.