1989 PLP 1111 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM and 6 others‑‑Respondents‑
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1111 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM and 6 others‑‑Respondents‑ |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1111 (SCMR)?
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 1989 PLP 1111 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1111 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM and 6 others‑‑Respondents‑). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 8th December, 1987 of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench in Writ Petition No.631 of 1986).
S.15‑‑Punjab Tenancy Act (V of 1887), S.60‑A‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions (i) that original tenant who had filed the pre‑emption suit in 1973 died in 1976 during its pendency before any decree could be passed; (ii) that the High Court wrongly made assumption that the right of pre‑emption was inheritable and that one of the sons of the original tenant, having been found to be the successor tenant, impugned decree was unexceptionable; (iii) right of pre‑emption as such was not inheritable; (iv) that peculiar right of pre‑emption granted by Martial Law Regulation to a tenant could not be continued unless after his death the successor tenant under S.60‑A, Punjab Tenancy Act continued to be the tenant at all relevant stages including those of suit and decree, and (v) that the eldest son of the original tenant alone could be treated as tenant under the law but the suit could not be decreed in his favour because, he had admittedly given up the tenancy as according to the findings, his younger brother was the tenant.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by Vendee/defendant side in a pre‑emption suit, against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Writ Petition. There have been earlier remands but after the final remand order the respondents' suit for pre‑emption having been decreed throughout on the ground of tenancy by the Revenue Authorities, the petitioners' Writ Petition was also dismissed, therefore, they have now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel, inter alia, has contended that the original tenant, namely, Muhammad Sadiq who had filed the pre‑emption suit in 1973 died in 1976 during its pendency before any decree could be passed. He also contended that the High Court wrongly made the assumption that the right of pre‑emption was inheritable and that Muhammad Nazir respondent No.3, one of the sons of the original tenant, having been found to be the successor tenant, the impugned decree was unexceptionable. He relied on cases decided from various jurisdictions to show that the right of pre‑emption as such is not inheritable. He argued that the peculiar right of pre‑emption granted by the Martial Law Regulation to a tenant could not be continued unless after his death the successor tenant under section 60‑A of the Punjab Tenancy Act continued to be the tenant at all relevant stages including those of suit and decree. And in this case Muhammad Bashir the eldest son of Muhammad Sadiq alone could be treated as tenant under the law. But the suit could not be decreed in his favour; because, admittedly he had given up tenancy‑‑according to findings, Muhammad Nazir was the tenant. These and other submissions raised in this petition require examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. Appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all additional documents which would be necessary for disposal of appeal. M.B.A./M‑811/S . Leave granted.