1998 PLP 511 (SCMR)
Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 511 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 511 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 511 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 511 (SCMR) (Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1995.
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17‑3‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Civil Revision No.94‑D of 1983/BWP). ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑ Suit was dismissed by Trial Court but was decreed in appeal and was again dismissed in revision by High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider contentions that property in question was situated in the area where provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, were applicable; that High Court omitted to examine documents produced by plaintiffs; that question of possession being important, High Court did not give any importance to such question; and that defendant (vendor) had filed suit wherein he had taken stand that he had not given possession of land in question.
Judgment & Decree
MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against a judgment, dated 17-3-1993 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in Civil Revision No.94-D of 1983-BWP.
2. The petitioners filed Suit No.410 of 1970 (1985) in the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar, for pre-empting sale of suit property by one Bashir Ahmed in favour of respondents 1 to
4. The petitioners claimed having right of pre-emption superior to that of respondents 1 to 3 for purchasing the suit land. They conceded similar right of pre-emption vesting in respondent No. Muhammad Tahir but took stand that his right had vanished for having joined respondents 1 to 3 in purchasing the suit land. Sale price was challenged to be Rs.22,000 and not Rs.30,000 mentioned in the deed. Mst. Sardar Begum was joined in the suit as a defendant being another pre-emptor but later on her name was deleted.
3. The suit was contested by the respondents who took legal pleas about the suit being not maintainable and barred by time. The sale was said to have been effected on consideration of Rs.30,000 and possession of the suit property was claimed to have been received by the respondents on 12-9-1962. The respondent claimed to be Pattidars in the Khata of the suit land. The petitioners were alleged to have waived their right of pre-emption. The respondents claimed to have spent Rs.12,000 on development of the suit land.
4. After settlement of issues and recording of evidence, the trial Court under the judgment and decree, dated 25-1-1972, dismissed the suit, after holding that the petitioners had no superior right of pre-emption; that Rs.22,000 were proved to have been paid as sale consideration and that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. On the point of improvements and waiver, the learned trial Court found that no evidence was led and said issues were decided against the respondents.
5. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge-III, Bahawalnagar, under his judgment and decree, decreed the suit subject to deposit of Rs.30,000 as pre-emption money minus the amount already deposited and if said amount was not deposited by 3-4-1983, the suit was to be treated as dismissed. The judgment arid decree passed by the appellate Court on 3-3-1983 was assailed in Civil Revision No.94-D of 1983-BWP which was accepted under the impugned judgment, dated 17-3-1993 by which the suit was ordered to have been dismissed. Hence this petition.
6. Rana Muhammad Sarwar, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the suit property was situated in Bahawalpur area where the Transfer of Property Act was applicable and that the High Court omitted to examine the documents produced by the petitioners. It was also argued that in a suit of the present nature, the question of possession was important but the point of possession was not given any importance by the High Court. In respect of the possession, the learned counsel pointed out that Muhammad Tahir had filed a suit where he had taken stand that he had not given possession.
7. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require examination in the light of the evidence on record. Accordingly, we grant leave to appeal. A.A./N-424/S Leave granted.