1995SCMR909 (PLP)
MOLA BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mian MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR909 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Actg. CJ. And Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | MOLA BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mian MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR909 (PLP)?
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 1995SCMR909 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Actg. CJ. And Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR909 (PLP) (MOLA BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mian MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Saeed‑ul‑Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9‑2‑1993 in Civil Revision N. 295‑D of 1985/BWP.). ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑ Plea of partial pre‑emption ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Property sold included vendor's share in the means of irrigation and Shamilat Deh‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for pre‑emption was dismissed by Trial Court but decreed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Defendant claimed that suit was for partial pre emption inasmuch as plaintiff had not asked for relief in respect of Shamilat Deh and the rights in the means of irrigation; therefore, no decree could be passed‑‑‑Defendant's contention had no merit‑‑‑Evidence on record indicated that vendor had no share in the Shamilat Deh nor was there any well from which she drew water, for irrigation‑‑‑Respondent, however, having offered to pay the entire consideration which the defendant had paid to vendor, there was no reason why he should have omitted to seek relief in respect of any of the rights sold by vendor to vendee (defendant)‑‑‑At the worst such lapse if any, on the part of plaintiff could be a case of unintentional omission which could not be equated with partial pre‑emption ‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. C.J.‑‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 9‑2‑1993 whereby the decree passed by the District Judge, Bahawalnagar, in a pre‑emption suit filed by the respondent was upheld.
2. By a registered deed dated 9‑1‑1980 Mst. Ghulaman sold about 67 Kanals and 9 Marlas of agricultural land situate in village Behramka of Tehsil Minchanabad to the petitioner. The property sold included the vendor's share in the means of irrigation and the Shamilat Deh. On 20‑11‑1980 the respondent brought a suit for pre‑emption. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal it was decreed by the District Judge, Bahawalnagar. The petitioner's revision petition before the High Court failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The only contention raised in support of this petition is that it was a case of partial pre‑emption inasmuch as the respondent had not asked for relief in respect of the Shamilat Deh and the rights in the means of irrigation; consequently, no decree could be passed in his favour. There is no merit in this contention. The evidence indicates that the vendor had no share in the Shamilat Deh nor was there any well from which she drew water for irrigation. However, that may be, the respondent had offered to pay the entire consideration which the petitioner had paid to the vendor. There was no reason why he should have omitted to seek relief in respect of any of the rights sold by the vendor to the vendee. At the worst, it could be a case of unintentional omission which could not be equated with partial pre‑emption. Leave is refused. AA./M‑2108/S Leave refused.