1989 PLP 1329(1) (SCMR)
GHULAM HABIB‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER ALI Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1329(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM HABIB‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER ALI Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1329(1) (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 1989 PLP 1329(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1329(1) (SCMR) (GHULAM HABIB‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER ALI Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Naazar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgments dated 14‑2‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, passed in Civil Revisions Nos.1331‑D and 1331‑D of 1983. respectively). ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Plaintiffs pre‑emption right founded on his relationship with his father, one of vendors‑‑Courts below decreed his suit to the extent of his father's share in the property sold‑‑Plaintiff being entitled to no more, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑A number of persons, including the father of the petitioner sold one kanal of land to the respondent. The petitioner filed a suit for pre‑emption. He founded his claim to superior right on his relationship with his father. The Additional District Judge and the High Court decreed his suit to the extent of his father's share in the property sold. He was entitled to no more. These petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed. A.A./G‑193/S Leave refused.