1986 PLP 1188 (MLD)
ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Defendant/Petitioner Versus PEHLWAN‑‑Plaintiff /Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1188 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abaid Ullah Khan, J |
| Parties | ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Defendant/Petitioner Versus PEHLWAN‑‑Plaintiff /Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1188 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1188 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abaid Ullah Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1188 (MLD) (ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Defendant/Petitioner Versus PEHLWAN‑‑Plaintiff /Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Petitioner.
- Syed Zamir Tirmizi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th May 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115‑‑Right of pre‑emption‑‑Pre‑emptor's suit on basis of being collateral to vendor‑ Vendee's right to resist suit on ground that land comprised in his tenancy‑‑Courts below decreeing suit of pre‑emptor‑‑Courts below, held, failed to read and interpret entries in revenue record properly Part of land pre‑empted, in fact comprised in tenancy of vendee to which right of pre‑emption would not extend‑‑Decree of pre‑emption granted by Court below was modified in revisional jurisdiction to extent that part of land which comprised in tenancy of vendee was deducted from decree or payment of proportionate price of sale amount of purchase money.
Judgment & Decree
Square No. 19 Killa No. 1/2 .......... 4 5 Killa No. 9 .......... 8 18 Killa No. 10 .......... 8 18 Square No. 28 Killa No. 21/2 .......... 6 00 Square No. 34 Killa No. 1 .......... 8 18 Killa No. 10 .......... 8 18 Killa No. 20 .......... 8 18 Killa No. 21 .......... 8 18 __________________________ Total 63 13 __________________________ The petitioner does not hold any land in tenancy in Khata No. 30 where from only one Marla of land had been purchased by him.
3. The petitioner admitted while appearing as his own witness, D.W.3, that he and Sardara, son of Mutali, had been jointly cultivating the land in dispute for the last eighteen years as tenants and that Sardars had 1/4th share and he himself 3/4th share of the tenancy. The learned counsel for the parties agree that as the petitioner purchased 2031745th share of the land of Khata No. 26 and he was tenant of 3/4th share in the tenancy land measuring 63 Kanals 13 Marlas, he was entitled to retain, by virtue of possessing better right of pre‑emption in regard to his tenancy land, 3/4th of 203/745th of 63 Kanals 13 Marlas, that is, 12 Kanals 16 Marlas of the land in all; the rest of 17 Kanals 14 Marlas of the land in suit would go to the respondent. The petitioner would thus have 256/2235th and the respondent 354/2235th share of 111 Kanals 15 Marlas of land of Khata No. 26.
4. In view of the above this petition is partially accepted and the impugned decisions are modified to the extent that instead of decree for possession of the entire land in dispute, decree for possession of 17 Kanals 14 Marlas of land being 354/2235th share of 111 Kanals 15 Marlas of land of Khewat No. 26 plus one Marla of land of Khewat No. 30 is passed in favour of the plaintiff‑respondent and against the defendant‑petitioner; the respondent's suit or possession of 12 KanalsI 16 Marlas of land being 256/2235th share of 111 Kanals 15 Marlas ofi land of Khewat No. 26 is dismissed. The respondent had paid in thee trial Court the purchase money of Rs.45,000 which the petitioner has not withdrawn, it is lying in deposit for him. The respondent, in execution of the decree secured by him, has taken possession of the land in dispute. As the respondent is found to be eligible to get only 17 Kanals 14 Marlas of land the petitioner will be paid proportionate price of Rs.26,114.75 while the balance of Rs.18,885.25 will be taken back by the respondent. The petitioner will be restituted possession of 11 Kanals 16 Marlas of land being 256/2235th share of the land measuring 111 Kanals 15 Marlas of Khata No. 26 in dispute. The learned trial Court will restituted the possession of the aforesaid land to the petitioner. In the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A. order accordingly.