2006 PLP 1959 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus FARMAN ALI through Legal Heirs — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1959 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus FARMAN ALI through Legal Heirs — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1959 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1959 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1959 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus FARMAN ALI through Legal Heirs — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Naveed Shaheryar for Petitioner.
- Baleegh-uz-Zaman Chaudhry for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 6 & 13
Making of Talabs
Trial Court dismissed suit holding that plaintiff/pre-emptor had failed to prove requisite Talabs
Appellate Court, however reversed findings of the Trial Court
Witness produced by plaintiff had deposed that plaintiff was informed of the sale of suit-land by his own sister who herself was one of the vendors
Said sister of plaintiff was not produced as a witness and no valid explanation for such material omission had been given by plaintiff, despite the fact that she was resident of village concerned
Appellate Court did not take note of said circumstances and also did not address the reasoning of the Trial Court
Appellate decree being based on a non-reading/misreading of material evidence, was not maintainable in law and thus was set aside; as a consequence decree passed by the Trial Court, stood restored.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioner/defendant impugns the appellate judgment and decree, dated 29-11-1999 whereby the decree of the learned trial Court, dated 1-10-1998 was set aside and a suit filed by the respondent Farman Ali (now represented by his legal representatives) seeking possession of the suit property through pre-emption was decreed.
2. The learned trial Court held that the respondent/plaintiff had failed to prove the requisite talabs. The appellate Court has, however, reversed this finding. For the reasons appearing below, I find the appellate decree to be based on a non-reading/misreading of material evidence.
3. The most important aspect of this case is that the three vendors, namely, Zaman Ali, Mst. Said Begum and Mst. Iqbal Begum, are the brother and sisters respectively of the respondent/plaintiff. Muhammad Laitf, P.W.4, examined by the respondent/plaintiff deposed that the respondent had been informed of the sale by his sister Mst. Iqbal Begum, who w, one of the vendors. The said Mst. Iqba; Begum was not produced as a witness and no valid explanation for this material' omission has been given by the respondent/plaintiff. From the testimony of Farman Ali, respondent/plaintiff, who appeared as P.W.6, it is clear that Mst. Iqbal Begum was residing in the village. In the circumstances, the only inference to be drawn from her non-appearance in the witness box is that if she had appeared, she would not have supported the respondents' contention. Secondly, even the petitioner's own witness Muhammad Latif P.W.4, had admitted that possession of the suit property had been given to the petitioner/vendee at the time of sale. As a second thought P.W.4 changed his testimony and stated that possession had been delivered subsequently.
4. The learned appellate Court did not take note of the above circumstances and also did not address the reasoning of the learned trial Court. In the circumstances, the appellate decree is not legally sustainable. It is, therefore, set aside. As a consequence the decree of the learned trial Court, dated 1-10-1998 stands restored. H.B.T./M-1419/L Revision allowed.