1991 PLP 213 (SCMR)
ABBAS KHAN and 8 others‑‑Appellants Versus Haji SAIFULLAH‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 213 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, J |
| Parties | ABBAS KHAN and 8 others‑‑Appellants Versus Haji SAIFULLAH‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 213 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 213 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 213 (SCMR) (ABBAS KHAN and 8 others‑‑Appellants Versus Haji SAIFULLAH‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Hafeezur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Kh. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 12‑2‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.329 of 1985). (a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.25‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiffs pre‑emption suit was decreed on payment of Rs.4,212 as Zar‑e‑Shufa‑‑‑Vendee claimed that sale amount should have been determined at Rs.45,000‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine contention that sale was effected through a registered deed wherein consideration was mentioned as Rs.45,000, not only this but also the entire amount was paid before Sub‑Registrar at the time of registration of deed. ‑‑‑S.25‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185‑‑‑Sale price of land ‑‑‑Vendee claimed that not only actual payment was made before Registrar but also the fact that land involved was more than fifty kanals and at relevant time price per kanal in that area was not less than Rs.1,000 per kanal‑‑‑Plaintiffs only assertion was that amount paid before Registrar eras returned‑‑‑Held there should have been very strong evidence in order to support version of return against afore‑stated strong circumstantial evidence in favour of vendees‑‑‑Supreme Court allowed appeal and increased the decretal amount to Rs.45,000 i.e., amount mentioned in sale‑deed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑This appeal through leave of the Court is directed; against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioners/defendants' Civil Revision. 1t had arisen out of a civil suit for pre- emption filed by the respondent/pre‑emptor which has been decreed throughout. The question which remains to be resolved is that while the decree for pre‑emption has been passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent on payment of Rs.4,212 as Zar‑e‑Shufa, the appellant/vendee claimed that the amount should have been determined at Rs.45,
000. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the argument that the sale was effected through a registered deed wherein the "consideration was mentioned as Rs.45,000". Not only this but also the entire amount was paid before the Sub‑Registrar at the time of the registration of the deed. The question noted in the leave granting order can be resolved by a balance treatment of material relied upon from both sides. According to learned counsel for the appellants it is not only the actual payment before the Registrar of Rs.45,000 but also the fact that land involved is more than 50 kanals in District Mianwali and at a place where even at the relevant time the price per Kanal would not be less than Rs.1,
000. As against this the material relied upon from the respondent's side is only an assertion that the amount paid before the Registrar was returned. There should have been very strong evidence in order to support the version of return against the afore‑stated strong circumstantial evidence in favour of the appellants. After some discussion learned counsel for the respondent could not take the care any further. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the decretal amount (Zar‑i‑Shufa) is increased to Rs.45,
000. After allowing adjustments of already deposit or paid amount, if any, the plaintiff is allowed three months time from today to pay/deposit the balance amount in accordance with law failing which the suit for pre‑emption shall be deemed to have been dismissed. AA./A‑742/S Appeal accepted.