2006 PLP 1098 (YLR)
SHER MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1098 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | SHER MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1098 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1098 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1098 (YLR) (SHER MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad' Ashfaq Mughal for Petitioner.
- Ch. Zaigham Ullah Sansi for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--Muhammad Nawaz respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession through pre-emption of the suit-land, which had been purchased by Sher Muhammad petitioner/ defendant. The suit was resisted. The learned trial Court framed 6 issues including that of' relief. Only Issue No.1 is of relevance here and-learned counsel for the petitioner has also confined his arguments to this issue which has been framed in the following terms: "Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption qua the defendant'? OPP:"
2. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, has come to the. conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff does not possess a superior right of pre-emption as compared to the petitioner. This finding, however, has been reversed by the learned lower appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18-2-2004.
3. According to the averments in the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff claimed that he had a superior right of' pre-emption on the basis that he was Shall Shank, Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar. This was denied by the petitioner in his written statement.
4. Since the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are at variance, I have myself examined the evidence, with the assistance of learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. He did not press the respondent's superior right of pre-emption on the basis of being co-owner in the Khewat. He confined his argument to the question of contiguity. I have examined the Aks Shajrah (Exh.P.4). This does not, in any manner, indicate that the respondent owned land, which was contiguous to the suit-land purchased by the petitioner/ defendant. The disputed land is in Killa No.2, which, according to the Aks Shajrah, does not have any common boundary with the land of the respondent/plaintiff.
5. In addition to the above, the learned trial Court considered the evidence whereby the petitioner had purchased 8 Kanals of land and had, thus, become owner in the Khata, The mere fact that the said purchase was under attack in a pre-emption suit, did not detract from the title of the petitioner in the said land. As such, the learned trial Court was justified in treating the petitioner as an owner in the Khata on the basis of the earlier purchase of 8 Kanals of land. The learned appellate Court committed error in law by holding to the contrary.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I set aside the appellate judgment and decree dated 18-2-2004. As a consequence, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 29-3-2002 stands restored. F.M./S-182/L Petition allowed.