2005 PLP 1123 (SCMR)
INAYAT — Petitioner Versus ALTAF ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1123 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | INAYAT — Petitioner Versus ALTAF ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1123 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1123 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1123 (SCMR) (INAYAT — Petitioner Versus ALTAF ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Aamir Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th April, 2003.
- Ch. Aamir Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7-3-2000 passed in R.S.A. No.409 of 1980).
Ss. 15 & 34
Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115); Para. 25
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Plaintiff as collateral of vendor claimed superior right of pre emption
Defendant raised plea of being tenant of land prior to its sale and suit being time-barred
Mutation of sale was entered on 28-3-1974 and attested on 21-10-1974
Trial Court decreed suit, which was upheld by both Appellate Courts
None of defendant's witnesses had deposed about his being in possession of suit-land at the time of its sale as tenant
Plaintiff had substantiated his superior right by producing pedigree table
Delivery of possession of land to vendee under sale either at the time of entry of mutation or before its attestation had not been proved
No date of change of possession had been mentioned in mutation
Sale in such case would be deemed to have taken place on date of attestation of mutation, from which limitation would start running
No illegality or infirmity was found in impugned judgment-- Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.
S. 30
Starting point of limitation
Date of change of possession, of land under sale not mentioned in mutation
Effect
Sale in such case would be deemed to have taken place on date of attestation of mutation, from which date limitation, would start running.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑ Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 7‑3‑2000 whereby the learned Single ,fudge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, discussed the Regular Second Appeal, filed by the petitioner and maintained the concurrent findings of the court below.
2. We need not to give details of the facts of this case as the same have been amply dealt with by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in the impugned judgment.
3. The crucial point required consideration in this case is whether the petitioner's claim being tenant of the disputed property got support from the evidence brought on record. The answer to this question is in negative. The two Courts below i.e. the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, after scanning the entire evidence have come to a conclusion that the petitioner has totally failed to substantiate his plea of tenancy. Even witnesses produced by him, D.W.1 Talib Hussain and D.V.2 Inayat Hussain, had not stated in their testimony that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land at the time of its sale as tenant. On the contrary, the respondents have successfully substantiated their superior right by producing pedigree‑table Exh. P.2. The other plea of the petitioner that the suit filed by the respondents was barred by time has also been repelled by the cogent reasons by the Courts below. It would be appropriate to mention here that mutation was entered by Patwari on 28‑3‑1974 while the same was sanctioned on 21‑10‑1974. The learned Courts below have rightly stated that the limitation would start in this case from the date of attestation of mutation i.e. 21‑10‑1974 as no date of change of possession was mentioned in the mutation. Admittedly, the sale in this case took place on 21‑10‑1974, the day on which the mutation was attested. None of the witnesses has stated that the possession was taken at the time of entry of mutation on 28‑3‑1974 (Exh.B1). It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge of the High Court which is in the following terms:
"Exh.P.1 does not mention the change of possession of the land' under the sale recorded therein. There is also no date or material to suggest‑that the possession of the land was delivered to the vendee under the sale before attestation of the mutation. In the absence of any evidence to that effect the limitation to enforce right of pre‑emption arises on the date the suit was barred by time is misconceived. The appellant has miserably failed to establish on record‑that he has superior right of pre‑emption on account of being tenant of the suit‑land prior to the sale. On the other hand, the entries of pedigree‑table Exh.P.2 show that the respondents are collaterals of the vendor, therefore, entitled to pre‑empt the sale. "
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court:
5. Resultantly, this has no merit, which is accordingly, dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./I‑79/S Leave refused.