2002 PLP 1372 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM ABBAS and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1372 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM ABBAS and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1372 (MLD)?
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 2002 PLP 1372 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1372 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM ABBAS and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ajmal Kamal Mirza for Petitioners.
- Ch, M. Munir Akhtar Minhas for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 21‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. II, R.2(3), O. VI, R.17 and O.XXIII, R.1 (1)‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption and declaration‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Abandonment of one of such reliefs ‑‑‑Plaintiff filed suit for declaration claiming to be owner in possession of half share in suit land on ground that he was an occupancy tenant and pre‑empted remaining half share as co sharer/owner in the estate‑‑‑Trial Court decreed suit, but Appellate Court dismissed suit mainly on ground that suit for declaration alongwith pre emption was not competent‑‑‑Plaintiff had prayed that he would give up his claim of pre‑emption and would like to pursue suit for declaration only, but defendant opposed that the same could not be done at such last stage‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plaintiff could give up any of reliefs claimed and retain other and such exercise would not change the nature of suit‑‑‑By foregoing plea of pre‑emption nothing new was being introduced by plaintiff in the plaint‑‑‑Appellate Court having not given his finding on certain issues, case was remanded for writing judgment on those issues as well in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Mst. Ghulam Zohra, was recorded as owner of 21 Kanals, 2 Marlas of land in Khasra No. 442, Khewat and Khatauni Nos, 110/172 Mouza Noorwal, Tehsil and District Chakwal. She sold the land in dispute through registered sale‑deed dated 12‑2‑1983 to the defendant/respondent No.
1. The plaintiff‑petitioner filed a suit for declaration claiming to be owner in possession of 1/2 share in the suit land on the ground that he was an occupancy tenant and pre‑empted the remaining 1/2 share as co‑sharer/owner in the estate. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The following issues were framed:‑‑ (1) Whether the suit has been correctly valued for the purposes of court‑fees and jurisdiction? If so, what is the correct valuation and its effect? OPP (2) Whether the Central Government, and others as named in the preliminary objection, are necessary parties? OPD (3) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction in the matter? OPD. (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD (5) Whether the suit is barred‑by time? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff was occupancy tenant of the suit land? OPP . (7) If issue No. 6 above is proved, whether the plaintiff became owner of 1/2 share of the suit land through operation of law? ' OPP (8) If issue No. 7 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for? OPP (9) Whether the plaintiff has got a superior right of pre‑emption qua the vendee‑defendant in respect of remaining half of the suit land? OPP (10) Whether the sale price of the suit land was fixed in good faith or actually paid? OPD (11) If issue No. 10 above is not proved, what was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale? OPP (11‑A) Whether the defendant is entitled to get Rs.6,500 as incidental charges in case of decree of the suit? OPD (12) Relief, The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide his judgment/decree dated 28‑7‑1987. However, the appeal against the judgment/decree of the trial Court was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment/decree dated 8‑10‑1988 and the suit of the plaintiff‑petitioner was dismissed mainly on the ground that suit for declaration alongwith pre‑emption was not competent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that he gives up his claim of pre‑emption and would like to pursue the suit for declaration only.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed that the same cannot be done at this stage.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has no merit. The petitioner can give up any of the reliefs claimed and retain the other. This would not change the nature of the suit. By foregoing the plea of pre‑emption, nothing new was being introduced in the plaint. The learned Additional District Judge has not given his findings on Issues Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
5. For what has been stated above, this revision petition is partly allowed and the case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for re‑writing judgment on Issues Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in accordance with law. H.B.T./M‑1138/L