PLD 1991

P L D 1991 Lahore 197 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB — Appellant Versus FAZAL DAD and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
N/A
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1991 Lahore 197 (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD YAQOOB — Appellant Versus FAZAL DAD and others — Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Lahore 197 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1991 Lahore 197 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1991 Lahore 197 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB — Appellant Versus FAZAL DAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Ch. Arshad Mahmood for Appellant. Sh. Naveed Sheharyar for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss.15 & 21-A

Right of pre-emption

Essential preferences for pre-emptor to succeed in his claim of pre-emption and for vendee to bring his status at par with pre-emptor

Pre-emptor, in order to succeed, was obliged to maintain his preference on three crucial stages via. date of sale, date of institution of preemption suit and the date of decree by trial Court

Loss of preference on or between any of three stages must prove fatal for a successful claim of preemption

Vendee's right was to be judged at the time of sale sought to be preempted

Where vendee's qualification was at par or superior to pre-emptor, pre

S.21-A

Pre-emption, right of -Improvement of vendee's status

Vendee could improve his status till the institution of pre-emption suit and thereafter improvement was permissible only either through inheritance or succession. [p. 199] B

S.15

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100

Vendee's status was at par with pre-emptor at the time of institution of suit for pre-emption

Pre-emption suit when filed was thus not maintainable

Subsequent disposal of land by vendee on basis of which his. status had been at par with pre-emptor, would not affect his right to retain land in question

Pre-emptor having no preferential right at the time of institution of his pre-emption suit, could not claim preferential right subsequently when vendee had disposed of land which had brought his status equal to that of pre-emptor

First Appellate Court's decision to the contrary was set aside and suit was dismissed thus upholding trial Court's decision. [p. 200] C

Judgment & Decree

emption suit against him must fail

While it was essential for pre-emptor to retain his superior qualifications as an unbroken chain till final stage was reached in pre-emption suit, it was not necessary for vendee to maintain them after the initial sale. [p. 199] A Muhammad Nawaz Khan and another v. Mussammat Bobo Sahib 44 P.R. 1903 and Sardar Darchan Khan and others v. Sohaura Mal 3 P.L.R. 1907 rel. (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

S.21-A

Pre-emption, right of -Improvement of vendee's status

Vendee could improve his status till the institution of pre-emption suit and thereafter improvement was permissible only either through inheritance or succession. [p. 199] B (c) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

S.15

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100

Vendee's status was at par with pre-emptor at the time of institution of suit for pre-emption

Pre-emption suit when filed was thus not maintainable

Subsequent disposal of land by vendee on basis of which his. status had been at par with pre-emptor, would not affect his right to retain land in question

Pre-emptor having no preferential right at the time of institution of his pre-emption suit, could not claim preferential right subsequently when vendee had disposed of land which had brought his status equal to that of pre-emptor

First Appellate Court's decision to the contrary was set aside and suit was dismissed thus upholding trial Court's decision. [p. 200] C Ch. Arshad Mahmood for Appellant. Sh. Naveed Sheharyar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th February, 1991.