1989SCMR796 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR796 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ---S.15--Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 M.L.R. 115, para. 25--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l85(3)--Pre-emption suit by co-sharer--Trial Court dismissed suit on ground that vendee was tenant of suit land--First Appellate Court reversed finding by granting pre-emptor decree to the extent of 2/3 share of land, which finding was upheld by High Court in second appeal--Petitioner's plea that he had not been heard by First Appellate Court whereby dismissal of suit by Trial Court was reversed--Petitioner failed to satisfy Supreme Court that if case was remanded for affording petitioner opportunity of being heard, result would be different--Objections raised being based on mere technicalities leave to appeal was refused. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR796 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR796 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---S.15--Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 M.L.R. 115, para. 25--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l85(3)--Pre-emption suit by co-sharer--Trial Court dismissed suit on ground that vendee was tenant of suit land--First Appellate Court reversed finding by granting pre-emptor decree to the extent of 2/3 share of land, which finding was upheld by High Court in second appeal--Petitioner's plea that he had not been heard by First Appellate Court whereby dismissal of suit by Trial Court was reversed--Petitioner failed to satisfy Supreme Court that if case was remanded for affording petitioner opportunity of being heard, result would be different--Objections raised being based on mere technicalities leave to appeal was refused. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR796 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.352/1981).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No.352/1981).
- S.1qba1 Haider Zaidi, Advocate with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.498/1981).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No.498/1981).
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988.
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.352/1981).
- S.1qba1 Haider Zaidi, Advocate with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.498/1981).
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18-2-1981 in R.S.A. 653 of 1979 and R.S.A. No.978 of 1979. (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-. .
S.15--Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115], para.25--Pre-emption suit by co-sharer--Suit resisted by vendee as being tenant of suit land--Suit decreed to the extent of 2/3 share in favour of pre-emptor while' that relating to 1/3 share was allowed to remain with vendee on ground of tenancy--Tenant's plea that pre -emption suit relating to entire land should have been dismissed as he was tenant regarding the entire suit land, repelled--Such plea could not be accepted because vendee did not purchase any specific area of suit land in joint holding of vendor and pre-emptor--Such vendee got a share which amounted to 1/3 of total joint holding, therefore, he would be entitled to retain 1/3 of total area under his tenancy. Lal Khan v. Faiz Ahmad 1986 S C M R 1962 distinguished.
S.15--Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R. 115], para. 25--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l85(3)--Pre-emption suit by co-sharer--Trial Court dismissed suit on ground that vendee was tenant of suit land--First Appellate Court reversed finding by granting pre-emptor decree to the extent of 2/3 share of land, which finding was upheld by High Court in second appeal--Petitioner's plea that he had not been heard by First Appellate Court whereby dismissal of suit by Trial Court was reversed--Petitioner failed to satisfy Supreme Court that if case was remanded for affording petitioner opportunity of being heard, result would be different--Objections raised being based on mere technicalities leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These two petitions; one by a pre‑emptor and the other by vendee‑defendant arise out of the same case. Therefore, they are being disposed of together. Muhammad Sharif, petitioner (C.P. No.498/81) sued for pre‑emption on the ground that he and his brother Muhammad Shafi vendor were co‑sharers in the suit land. Muhammad Ali vendee petitioner (C.P. No.352/81.) resisted the suit on the ground of tenancy. The present position is that after the decision of the High Court, there is a pre‑emption decree m favour of Muhammad Sharif to the extent of 2/3 share in the suit land (51 Kanals 13 Marlas) and 1/3 share therein has been allowed to remain with the vendee Muhammad Ali on the ground of tenancy. The learned counsel for Muhammad Ali has argued that the entire suit relating to the suit land i.e. 51 Kanals 13 Marlas should have been dismissed because Muhammad Ali is the tenant regarding the entire 51 Kanals 13 Marlas. This plea cannot be accepted because Muhammad Ali did not purchase any A specific area of 51 Kanals 13 Marlas in the joint holding of the vendor and the pre‑emptor. He got a share which amounted to 1/3 of the total joint holding therefore he would be entitled to retain 1/3 of the total area under his tenancy. Reliance of the learned counsel on Lai Khan v. Faiz Ahmad 198f> S C M R 1962 is of no help to him as the same is distinguishable. Moreover, all the facts of the case are not given in the report. The petition No.352/81 is, therefore, dismissed. The learned counsel for pre‑emptor‑petitioner in Civil Petition No.498/81 contended that the petitioner was not afforded enough opportunity of hearing by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the decision of dismissal of the suit by the trial Court should not have been reversed by the appellate Court. We asked him to satisfy us that if the case is remanded for affording Muhammad Sharif an opportunity of hearing the results would be different. He did not urge anything in this behalf. We would, therefore, not grant leave to appeal on mere technicalities. The other petition No.498/81 is also dismissed. A.A./M‑731/S Leave to appeal refused.