1999 PLP 648 (YLR)
ABDUR RAHIM KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER ALI KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 648 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Abdur Rauf Khan Lughmani, J |
| Parties | ABDUR RAHIM KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER ALI KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 648 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 648 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Abdur Rauf Khan Lughmani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 648 (YLR) (ABDUR RAHIM KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER ALI KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gohar Zaman Khan Kundi for Petitioner.
- S. Zafar Abbas Zaidi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th November, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) North‑West Frontier Province Pre- emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 13(3)‑‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑‑Talabs‑‑‑Two Talabs or either of the Talabs had not been made in accordance with law‑‑‑Suit for pre- emption would entail dismissal. (b) North‑West Frontier Province Pre -emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 13(3)‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Talab‑i‑Ishhad‑‑ Notice of Talab‑i‑Ishhad to be given to right person at correct address and in correct manner‑‑‑Where such notice was sent to minor and not to his guardian at an incorrect address, such notice was not proper‑‑ Judgment and decree of Appellate Court dismissing pre‑emption suit in such circum stances were maintained.
Judgment & Decree
Suit No.291/1 filed by Abdur Rahim against Sher Ali for possession through pre -emption of land, bearing Khasra No.6419/6005/3663, measuring 7 Kanals, to the extent of 13/132th share, equivalent to 14 Marlas, purchased through Mutation No.7189 attested on 28‑5‑1988 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on the payment of Rs.3,500, vide judgment and decree, dated 7‑6‑1994. On appeal by the vendee, the learned District Judge, Lakki Marwat, vide judgment and decree, dated 11‑1‑1995 vacated the judgment and decree of the lower Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Hence the present revision by the plaintiff.
2. The observance of Talb‑i- Muwathibat and Talb‑i‑Ishhad as mentioned in section 13 of the N.‑W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act, 1987 are necessary to successfully enforce right of pre‑emption. Where it is found that the two Talabs or either of the Talab had not been made in accordance with law, the pre‑emptor would not be obliged by the Court and consequently his suit would entail dismissal. The procedure of Talb‑i -Ishhad laid down in subsection (3) of section 13 of the Pre‑emption Act, 1987, must be followed in letter and spirit and qualitative evidence has to be led that the notice of Talb‑i‑Ishhad was given to right person at correct address and in correct manner. Surely, the respondent was minor and notice of Talb‑e‑Ishhad addressed to him, at an incorrect address, cannot be treated as valid. His father is natural and legal guardian and notice of Talb‑i‑Ishhad was to be despatched to the guardian of the minor respondent. This fact is evident from the postal envelope sent to the minor respondent which bears his address as "Sher Ali Khan S/o Jumma Khan, Wanda Fateh Khan, presently Railway Station Jadeed Abadi, Contractor Muhammad Jan, Tehsil and District Bannu". The said envelope was returned unserved, with the report that the addressee is not available. The address given in the mutation and other documents is "Resident of Wanda Fateh Khan". It was, therefore, incumbent upon the petitioner to have issued notice of Talb‑i‑Ishhad to father of the vendee, who is legal guardian, at correct address. The notice of Talb‑e‑Ishhad under the circumstances cannot be treated as proper.
3. As such, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity and, therefore, I find no merit in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed. C.M.A./M.A.K./342/P Petition dismissed.