1995SCMR303 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAFI through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR303 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFI through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (1 ref 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR303 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (1 ref 1913)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR303 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR303 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAFI through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir A. Mujahid, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S.M. Masud, Advocate instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on -Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th December, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16‑5‑1993 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 1422 of 1978). ‑‑‑‑S. 30‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption dismissed by Trial Court was decreed by Appellate and Revisional Court‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Decree in question, was assailed on the ground that physical possession of the land was delivered to vendee on specified date when entry of transaction of sale was made in mutation, therefore, suit filed after one year of such specified date was barred by time; and that plaintiff had failed to prove superior right of pre‑emption ‑‑‑Plaintiff's superior right of pre‑emption was not specifically denied in written statement‑‑‑Plaintiff was not cross‑examined by defendant when he stated before Court that he was the brother of vendor and also a co‑sharer in the Khata in question‑‑‑Superior right of plaintiff was also not challenged by defendant before High Court‑‑‑Subject‑matter of suit for pre‑emption being a share in joint Khata was not capable of admitting physical possession on specified date, when entry with regard to transaction of sale was made in mutation‑‑‑Limitation would, thus, run from the date of attestation of mutation and not from specified date when entry was made in the register of mutations relating to transaction of sale‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption having been filed within one year of attestation of mutation was well within time‑‑‑Well‑reasoned judgment of High Court whereby decree for pre‑emption was affirmed in favour of plaintiff was not susceptible to interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 16‑5‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, arises from the facts that on 21‑2‑1975, Nawab Din (respondent) filed a suit for possession through pre‑emption of the land measuring 14 Kanals 17 Marlas i.e., 1/2 share of Khewat No. 133, Khatuni No.201, Jaranwala, on the basis of being real brother of the vendor and.co sharer in the Khata, against Muhammad Rafi (predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners namely, Mst. Nasreen Akhtar and 5 others), in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaranwala. The suit was resisted. Issues were framed. The plaintiff appeared as P.W.2 and produced Abdul Wahab (P.W.1) in support of his case. He also tendered Exh. P‑1 (copy of the mutation), Exh.P.2 (copy of the Jamabandi) and Exh. P.3 (copy of the Khasra Girdawari). In rebuttal, Muhammad Rafi (defendant) produced Rehmat Ali (D.W.1), Alauddin (D.W.2), Ahmad Din (D.W.3) and Ramzan (D.W.4). He himself appeared as D.W.5. He also tendered documents Exhs. D.1 to D.7. The Civil Judge dismissed the suit on 21‑5‑1976. The appeal filed by Nawab Din, respondent/plaintiff was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, and the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed subject to the payment of sale price, on 16‑1‑1978. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Muhammad Rafi/defendant filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed on 16‑5‑1993.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following points before us:‑‑ (i) That the suit filed by Nawab Din, respondent, was barred by time. He explained that the physical possession of the suit land was delivered to Muhammad Rafi, vendee, on 18‑2‑1974 when the entry of the transaction of sale was made in the Mutation. Therefore, the suit which was filed on 21‑2‑1975 was barred by time; and (ii) That the plaintiff has failed to prove his superior right of pre‑emption.
3. We have carefully attended to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. We find that the superior right of the petitioners was not specifically denied in the written statement. It was also not denied by Muhammad Rafi/defendant in his statement as D.W.5 Muhammad Rafi, in his examination‑in‑chief, stated that he was brother of the vendor and also co sharer in the Khata, but he was not cross‑examined on this point. Furthermore, the superior rights of the plaintiff was not challenged by the present petitioners before the High Court.
4. As regards point No. (i), we find that the sale, the subject‑matter of the suit for pre‑emption, was of a share in the joint Khata. As such, the land was not capable of admitting physical possession on 18‑2‑1974 when entry with regard to the transaction of sale was made in the mutation. This being the position, the limitation would run from the date of attestation of the mutation i.e., 26‑2‑1974 and not from 18‑2‑1974. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are devoid of force.
5. We do not see any reasons to interfere with the well‑reasoned judgment of the High Court. Accordingly leave to appeal is refused. A.A./N‑399/SC Leave refused.