1989 PLP 1795 (SCMR)
ABDUL MAJEED and 4 others‑‑Petitioners c Versus MIRAN BAKHSH and 3 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1795 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJEED and 4 others‑‑Petitioners c Versus MIRAN BAKHSH and 3 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1795 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1795 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1795 (SCMR) (ABDUL MAJEED and 4 others‑‑Petitioners c Versus MIRAN BAKHSH and 3 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate with M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo, for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 20‑3‑1988 in Writ Petition No.383 of 1986) ‑‑‑S.60‑A‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑ Tenancy rights‑‑Land at the relevant time was under tenancy and under cultivating possession of M‑‑Petitioners had not placed on record at the trial stage enough mater al to show that deceased tenant had not made a "preference" in favour of M, who actually was found to be the tenant and further that in such an eventuality the elder brother had in fact become the tenant‑‑Mere possibility of the eldest son becoming the tenant by virtue of operation of S.60‑A, held, would not be of any rise/help to the petitioners‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in a pre‑emption matter by the defendants' side against the dismissal by the High Court, of their writ petition. The controversy now left to be resolved is whether, Miran Bakhsh respondent/plaintiff/pre‑emptor has been able to establish the ground of tenancy, on the basis of which, a decree has been passed in his favour and the petitioners have lost throughout. Notwithstanding the fact there are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners regarding the factum of tenancy at the time relevant in this case; namely, the date of the sale of the property, learned counsel raised what he thought was a point of law. Relying on section 60‑A of the Punjab Tenancy Act he contended that the sale having taken place in 1982, the last tenant on the land the father of Miran Bakhsh, died in 1980. According to Section 60‑A, learned counsel further contended, the "preferred" heir of Miran Bakhsh was to hold the tenancy in succession' failing which the eldest son was to become tenant on the death of Miran Bakhsh in 1980. The argument further proceeds that there was no "preferred" heir in this case and the eldest son being another brother of Miran Bakhsh, named Ghulam Rabbani, the former could not have been treated as tenant in law. In so far as the facts of this case are concerned the argument is untenable. There are findings of fact with reference to Khasra Girdawari and other material that actually the land in question at the relevant time was under tenancy and cultivating possession of Miran Bakhsh. It was for the petitioners' side to have placed on record at the trial stage enough material; firstly, to show that the deceased tenant had not made a "preference" in favour of Miran Bakhsh who actually was found to be the tenant and further that in such an eventuality the elder brother had in fact become the tenant. The mere possibility of the eldest son becoming a tenant by virtue of operation of Section 60A, would not be of any use/help to the petitioners in this case. In the light of the foregoing discussion on this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./A‑510/S Petition dismissed.