1987 PLP 692(2) (SCMR)
EHSAN ELLA HI‑‑Petitioner Versus AKHTAR ALI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 692(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Mian Burhanuddin Khan and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | EHSAN ELLA HI‑‑Petitioner Versus AKHTAR ALI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 692(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 692(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Mian Burhanuddin Khan and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 692(2) (SCMR) (EHSAN ELLA HI‑‑Petitioner Versus AKHTAR ALI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Riazul Hassan Gilani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.1 to 5.
- Date of hearing: 7th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑10‑1979 in R.S.A. No. 284 of 1979). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 7, 15 & 16‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑ ‑Trial Court's finding that property in dispute had lost its character as agricultural land and that it was now urban immovable property reversed by District Judge‑‑High Court, on reappraisal of evidence, setting aside findings of District Judge and restoring those of Trial Court‑‑No reason found to interfere with findings of High Court‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Riazul Hassan Gilani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.1 to
5. Date of hearing: 7th February, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court which reversed the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Gujrat and restored those of the trial Court, dismissing the suit for pre‑emption filed by the petitioner.
2. The property in dispute falls within the limits of Kharian Town. The trial Court found that it had lost its character as agricultural land and that it was now urban immovable property. This finding was reversed by the Additional District Judge. On re‑appraisal of the evidence the High Court set‑aside the findings of the Additional District Judge and restored that of the trial Court. We find no reason to interfere with the findings of the High Court in this regard. The petitioner led no evidence at the trial to indicate that the right of pre‑emption existed in that part of Kharian Town where the land in dispute was located when the Pre‑emption Act, 1913, came into force. That being so, in view of the provisions of section 7, Pre‑emption Act, the petitioner could not claim a superior right of pre‑emption for himself.
3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the right of pre‑emption was part of the Islamic Law and wherever the Muslims lived in Pakistan the custom of pre‑emption should be presumed to exist. Even if the proposition canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is assumed to be correct, although we make no comments on it, still he cannot succeed in his claim of superior right. It is to be noticed that in his plaint the petitioner had founded his preferential right solely on the ground that he was the son of the vendor. Now, section 16 of the Pre‑emption Act, enumerates the persons in whom the right of pre‑emption vests in respect of urban immovable property. A son, or, for that matter a collateral of the vendor, is not mentioned therein. We would accordingly reject the contention of the petitioner. 4.This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed S.Q./E‑1/S Petition dismissed