1990 PLP 1725 (SCMR)
MIR ABBAS KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus GULAP SHAH‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1725 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, J |
| Parties | MIR ABBAS KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus GULAP SHAH‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1725 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1725 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1725 (SCMR) (MIR ABBAS KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus GULAP SHAH‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Hamid Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑ Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Noor Ahmad Khan Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) and Z. Mahfooz Khan Advocate Supreme Court (absent) for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd.April,1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 10‑4‑1985 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Civil Rcvision No.58‑D of 1982). (a) North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine that the petitioner seeking leave to appeal was a vendee tenant, who had been allowed protection from the pre‑emption claim for a portion of his tenanted land, proportionate to share of vendor in the joint holding‑‑‑Petitioner claimed protection for the entire share of purchased land which was less than his entire tenanted land in the joint holding. (b) North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185‑‑‑Claim for pre‑emption based on inherited right of pre‑emption ‑‑‑Legality of ‑‑‑Vendee's plea was based on assertion that plaintiff having based his right of pre‑emption on plea of co sharer-ship on basis of acquiring property in inheritance from his father who died after sale but before institution of suit, therefore, plaintiff's claim for pre‑emption was based on inherited right of pre‑emption, which was not permissible in Islam ‑‑‑Vendee's plea was reasonable‑‑‑ Supreme Court having entertained a review application by order dated 7th March, 1990, in Malik Ghulam Nabi's case, in Civil Review Petition No.l‑Q of 1987 for a full hearing, vendee/appellant's request was allowed and he was granted leave to appeal on the aforenotcd point raised by him in addition to the point already noted in the order for grant of leave to appeal, dated 2‑7‑1985. Azizur Rehman and others v. Muhammad Nawaz P L D `1988 SC 384; Muhammad Younas v. Khushal 1989 S C M R 69 and Sardar Ali and others v. 7 Muhammad Ali and others 1989 S C M R 1079 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in this matter to defendant/vendee (appellant) to examine the following question:‑‑ . "The petitioner seeking leave to appeal, is a vendee tenant, who has been allowed protection from the pre‑emption claim for 30 Kanals 19 Marlas of his tenanted land measuring 86 Kanals 19 Marlas. The protection allowed is to only a portion of his tenanted land, proportionate to the share of the vendor in the joint holding measuring 174 Kanals 11 Marlas. He claims protection for the entire share of the purchased land (60 Kanals 4 Marlas) which is less than his entire tenanted land (86 Kanals 19 Marlas) in the joint holding." Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that another very important point on which he has now the support of recent judgments of this Court needs to be examined and leave should, therefore, be granted in that behalf accordingly. As asserted by him the respondent/plaintiff had based his right of pre‑emption on the plea of co‑sharership on the basis of acquiring property in inheritance from his father who died after the sale but before the institution of the suit. Therefore, as argued by the learned counsel, the respondent/plaintiffs claim for pre‑emption is based on inherited right of pre‑emption which, as further argued by him, is not permissible in Islam. fie has cited Azizur Rchman and others v. Muhammad Nawaz P L D 1988 SC: 384, Muhammad Younas v. Khushal 1989 S C M R 69 and Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others 1989 S C M R 1079. The request is reasonable. We have entertained a review application by order dated 7th March, 1990 in Civil Review Petition No.l‑Q of 1987, Malik Ghulam Nabi v. Member Board of Revenue for a full hearing of the R same point by a larger Bench. We, accordingly, allow the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant and grant leave to appeal on the aforenoted point raised by him in addition to the point already noted in the order for grant of leave to appeal, dated 2‑7‑1985. Notice of the addition of a point for leave to appeal shall now be issued to the respondent as well as his counsel. This appeal shall be heard with the said Review Application No.l‑Q of 1987. AA./A‑746/S Order accordingly.