1986 PLP 479 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ALI GOHAR‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 479 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J., Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S. A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ALI GOHAR‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 479 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 479 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J., Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 479 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ALI GOHAR‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Qazi Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhter Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, dated 8‑6‑1985 passed in Civil Revision No. 37 of J 9130). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Question of fact‑‑Courts below giving finding on relevant issue, on basis of evidence, which was one of fact and no question of law arising fur consideration‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, dated 8‑6‑1985. 2. The dispute in this case arises out of the proceedings in a suit filed by Ali Gohar who pre‑empted a sale on the ground of being a co‑sharer and a participator in the amenities and appendages in the suit land as also the owner of land contiguous to the suit land. The plaintiff on such pleas claimed a superior right of pre‑emption over the vendee‑petitioner. 3. The trial Court framed as many as 10 issues in the suit and decreed it for possession of the suit land through pre‑emption on payment of pre‑emption amount of Rs.26,285. The issue whether the plaintiff/respondent had a superior right of pre‑emption was considered in the light of the evidence brought on the record. The petitioners unsuccessfully appealed against the judgment of the trial Court acid their application for revision also met the same fate in the High Court. 4. We have gone through the impugned judgment as also the judgments of the learned two Courts below. The finding of the trial Court on the disputed issue was confirmed by the learned District Judge and it was held on appreciating the evidence on the record, that the plaintiff/respondent was "undoubtedly a co‑sharer in the suit property." The contention of the petitioner, as also raised before us, that in the wake of an official partition the respondent ceased to be a co‑sharer in the suit property and for that purpose some additional evidence was also recorded, was duly considered by the learned District Judge and found to be without any substance. It was held that no official partition had taken place and even if airy official partition, as alleged "is presumed to have become conclusive, the respondent remained a co‑sharer iii the suit property." In this connection reference was made to certain documents on the record. The learned High Court found, again looked into the evidence and confirmed that the factum of respondent pre‑emptor having a superior right stood proved. 5. After hearing the learned counsel and having gone through the impugned judgment and also the judgments of the trial Court and the District Judge, we find that the three Courts have given finding oil the relevant issue oil the basis of evidence which is one of fact, and no question of law arises for consideration. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M. Y . H . Petition dismissed.