1994 PLP 1645 (SCMR)
IMDAD HUSSAIN MALIK ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1645 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | IMDAD HUSSAIN MALIK ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1645 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1645 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1645 (SCMR) (IMDAD HUSSAIN MALIK ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Shahid Hussain Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th December, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 5‑7‑1992 in RSA No. 893/77 (Lahore)/RSA No. 8 of 1978/(BWP)). ‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑High Court reversing concurrent findings of fact of two Courts below‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Courts below had concurrently found that land in question, continued to be agricultural in nature‑‑Such findings of fact was arrived at by Courts below on appraisal of evidence on record‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether High Court ought not to have disturbed finding of Courts below which was otherwise well founded.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit for pre‑emption which has been dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, after reversing the judgments of the District Judge, Bahawalpur and Civil Judge, Hasilpur.
2. By a registered deed dated 3‑1‑1975 Mst. Kaniz Fatima sold 4 Kanals of land situate in Village Khairpur Tamewali, Tehsil Hasilpur, for a sum of Rs.20,000 to the respondent. On 29‑9‑1975 the petitioner who was her son brought a suit for pre‑emption. The suit was resisted by the respondent on a number of grounds. However, the ground that is now material was to the effect that the suit land had ceased to be agricultural in nature and had assumed the character of urban immovable property. The trial Court rejected this ground and decreed the petitioner's suit. In first appeal the District Judge affirmed the finding of the trial Court. However, in second appeal, the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the Courts below and found substance in the ground in question; accordingly, it set aside the judgments of the subordinate Court and dismissed the suit of the petitioner. From the judgment of the High Court the petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the question whether the land in dispute had lost its agricultural character and assumed the complexion of urban immovable property was one of fact as the decision on this question rested entirely upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. The two subordinate Courts had concurrently held after. appraisal of the evidence that the land in dispute continued to be agricultural in nature. It was not open to the High Court to interfere with their finding in second appeal. Apart from that it was admitted by the respondent's own witness, Muhammad Iqbal (D.W.7): In view of this admission the High Court ought not to have disturbed the finding of the subordinate Courts which was otherwise well‑founded.
4. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. AA./I‑188/S Leave granted.