1995 PLP 58 (SCMR)
KARIM BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 58 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. And Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | KARIM BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 58 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 58 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. And Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 58 (SCMR) (KARIM BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l to 28.
- Date of hearing: 19th December, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 26‑5‑90 in R.S.A. No. 230 of 1979). (a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 21‑‑‑Improvement in status of defendant (vendors) after the institution of suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Improvement in status of defendants after the institution of suit being in violation of S. 21, Punjab Pre‑emption Act 1913, with the object to defeat right of pre‑emption was of no effect and same would not affect plaintiffs' right of pre‑emption. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 2‑S‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Sale price of land in question as determined by First Appellate Court, was not challenged by plaintiffs‑‑‑Sale price would remain intact as per terms of judgment of First Appellate Court‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and plaintiffs' suit was decreed in terms of value/price as determined by First Appellate Court. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 26‑5‑1990.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents Nos.29 to 37 jointly purchased agricultural land measuring 206,Kanals through a registered sale -deed dated 5‑2‑1968 for a consideration of Rs.35,
000. The respondents 29 to 37 sold land measuring 92 Kanals 18 Marlas on 2‑12‑1968 to the petitioners and the sale was got registered on 24‑1‑1969. Allah Bakhsh and others pre‑empted the sale. The suit of the pre‑emptors was decreed against the petitioners. The petitioners' appeal was accepted by the Additional District Judge. The learned High court set aside the order of the Additional District Judge and restored the decree of the trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that subsequent sale in favour of the petitioners was made on 2‑12‑1968 whereas the pre‑emption suit was filed on 13‑1‑1969 and the petitioners had improved their status and the same was equal to that of pre‑emptors. It was held by the High Court that the second sale did not improve the status. It was made after the filing of the pre emption suit of the plaintiffs and therefore there was no improvement in the status of the defendants. The view taken by the High Court is not open to any exception. Such sale was made in violation of provisions of section 21 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act and the status of the petitioners had not been improved. It appears that the second sale was made with an object to defeat the rights of the pre‑emptors but this could not be done. Thus, the contention has no force.
4. Learned counsel next submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had declared that the price of the land was Rs.35,
000. The learned Civil Judge had decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.26,
760. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents are prepared to make payment of the amount as determined by the appellate Court. Here, it may also be mentioned that Issues Nos. 5 and 6 which relate to the sale consideration and market value of the suit land were not challenged before the High Court and therefore the finding of the learned Additional District Judge about the sale price of the suit land would remain intact. In view of the above facts and concession made by the learned counsel for the respondents, this petition is converted into an appeal to the extent that the sale price would be that which is determined by the appellate Court. The balance amount to be paid by the respondents within three months failing which the suit shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. AA./K‑247/ S Order accordingly.