1989 PLP 4128 (MLD)
Mst. BAKHTO through Legal Heirs‑‑Appellant Versus BAGH ALI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4128 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Amjad Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst. BAKHTO through Legal Heirs‑‑Appellant Versus BAGH ALI‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4128 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4128 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Amjad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4128 (MLD) (Mst. BAKHTO through Legal Heirs‑‑Appellant Versus BAGH ALI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Hussain Malik for Appellant.
- Allah Wasaya Malik for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 15‑‑Superior right of pre‑emption‑‑Pre‑emption decree passed by Trial Court, upholding, plaintiffs clam as a collateral heir in male line of ascent o vendor, affirmed m appeal, was not liable to be reversed upon admission of relationship of vendee as a `daughter of vendor's sister because, being only a distant‑kindred such vendee stood excluded from inheritance of vendor by plaintiff who had been concurrently held to be heir of residuary class‑‑Situation would not improve for her even upon her being admitted to be a co‑sharer of suit land because right of pre‑emption once lost in the order of higher preference, would not be capable of being re‑invested on account of an additionally possessed lesser qualification. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 100‑‑Second appeal‑‑Decrees concurrently passed by two Courts below not suffering from any error of law or jurisdiction and being unexceptionable on record, held, could not be interfered with in second appeal.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 100‑‑Second appeal‑‑Decrees concurrently passed by two Courts below not suffering from any error of law or jurisdiction and being unexceptionable on record, held, could not be interfered with in second appeal. Ghulam Hussain Malik for Appellant. Allah Wasaya Malik for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989. Trial Court's pre‑emption decree dated 15‑4‑1969, upholding the respondent‑plaintiffs claim as a collateral heir in the male‑line of ascent of the vendor having been affirmed in the appeal below is not liable to be reversed upon the admission of the relationship of the vendee‑appellant as a daughter of the vendor's sister because, being only a distant‑kindred, she stands excluded from the inheritance of the vendor by the plaintiff who has been concurrently held to be the heir of residuary class. The situation will not improve for her even upon her being admitted to be a co‑sharer of the suit‑land because the right of pre -emption once lost in an order of higher preference would not be capable of being re‑invested on account of an additionally possessed lesser qualification.
2. Decrees passed by the two Courts below do not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction and are unexceptionable on the record. There is no case at all made out for interference, and hence, this appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Costs hereof are, however, left to be borne by the parties themselves. H.B.T./B‑128/L Appeal dismissed.