P L D 1994 Supreme Court 356 (PLP)
TAJUL MULK‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAITOON BIBI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1994 Supreme Court 356 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Fatal Bald Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | TAJUL MULK‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAITOON BIBI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Supreme Court 356 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Supreme Court 356 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Fatal Bald Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Supreme Court 356 (PLP) (TAJUL MULK‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAITOON BIBI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1993,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 27‑2‑1993 in Civil Revisions Nos.455 and 456 of 1986 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar). North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 31‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Accrual of cause of action to pre emptor ‑‑‑Where statement of vendor was recorded prior to attestation of mutation and payment of sale consideration was admitted in . such statement, cause of action would accrue to y pre‑emptor on the attestation of mutation which was the final order of completion of sale transaction. (p. 3571 A Barkhurdar v. Muhammad Razzaq PLD 1989 SC 749 ref. Gharib Shah and others v. Zarmar Gul PLD 1984 SC 188 rel,
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL IL.AHI KHAN, J: ‑‑The suit for possession by pre‑emption, brought by Mst. Zaitoon Bibi w/o Rahmat Gul, of the land detailed in the plaint, sold in favour of Tajul Mulk petitioner on the basis of Mutation No.S29 attested on 16‑1‑1976, was decreed in her favour and in favour of the rival pre emptors; namely, Qazi Zainullah and others, in equal shares. The defendant/vendee's appeals against the judgment and decree were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Peshawar on 16‑5‑1985. Two revision petitions filed by the defendant's/vendee's against the judgments and decrees passed in appeal were dismissed by the High Court by a common judgment dated 27‑2‑1993. Leave to appeal is sought for against the judgment of the learned High Court. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale being oral the revenue officer recorded the statements of the vendors in the mutation register on 5‑8‑1971 in which they had accepted receipt of the sale consideration and delivery of possession to the vendees of the land under sale, therefore, the suit for pie‑emption filed within a year of the attestation but beyond such statement was barred by time. Reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court Barkhurdar v. Muhammad Razzaq PLD 1989 SC
749. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no force. The question of period of limitation of a sale through mutation has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in a judgment in Gharib Shah and other v. Zarmar Gul, reported in PLD 1984 SC 188, wherein it has been clearly held that even if such statement is recorded prior to attestation of mutation and payment of sale consideration is admitted in such statement the cause of action will accrue to a pre‑emptor on the attestation of mutation which is the final order of completion of the sale transaction. Such being the case the Courts below wire perfectly justified in holding the plaintiffs/respondents' suit for pre‑emption, filed within one year of the attestation of mutation, as well within time. We, therefore, find no merit in these petitions. These are, therefore, dismissed. A.A./T‑95/S Petitions dismissed