1994SCMR1783 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD FAZAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KAURA through Legal Heirs and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994SCMR1783 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAZAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KAURA through Legal Heirs and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994SCMR1783 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994SCMR1783 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994SCMR1783 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD FAZAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KAURA through Legal Heirs and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 11‑5‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, in R.S.A. No. 357 of 1976). Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention, whether High Court was justified in setting aside concurrent findings of Courts below; and whether solitary entry in Khasra Girdawari wherein vendees were entered in possession of a part of land in question, could have been relied upon in absence of any other evidence.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑Sale of land measuring 96 Kanals in favour of Kaura respondent through Mutation No. 14 attested on 21‑11‑1973 was pre‑empted by the petitioner in Suit No. 233 of 1974 instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Rahimyarkhan. The suit was contested by the defendants/vendees on the ground that plaintiff had waived his right of pre‑emption and that the defendant/vendee had first right of pre‑emption being the sitting tenant of the land sold before the same made in his favour. The learned trial Court decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and decreed the suit on payment of the sale consideration entered in the mutation. It was found that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari wherein part of the suit land was shown in possession of the respondent/vendees could not be relied upon. in absence of any other cogent evidence. Appeal against the same was dismissed but the learned High Court vide impugned judgment set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below in revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Leave is granted to consider the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that; firstly, whether the learned High Court was justified in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below, and secondly, whether the solitary entry , in the Khasra Girdawari wherein respondent/vendees' are entered in possession of a part of the suit property, could have been relied upon in absence of any other evidence. AA./M‑1923/S Leave granted.