2001 SCMR 2011 (PLP)
KHUDA BAKHSH‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. GHALOORAN and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 SCMR 2011 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdur Rehman Khan and Tan veer Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | KHUDA BAKHSH‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. GHALOORAN and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 SCMR 2011 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 SCMR 2011 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdur Rehman Khan and Tan veer Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 SCMR 2011 (PLP) (KHUDA BAKHSH‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. GHALOORAN and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Tayyab, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16‑6‑1996, of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, passed in C.R. No.273‑1) of 1988 BWP). Pre‑emption‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Suit for pre‑emption claiming superior right on the basis of oral unregistered sale‑‑‑Plaintiff contended that he had claimed first right of pre-emption on the basis of tenancy in his written statement and had reiterated in his‑ evidence 'but there was no discussion on that issue by the Courts‑‑ Validity‑‑‑None of the Courts below had decided the question of tenancy and on that count the pre‑emption rights of parties inter se‑‑‑Supreme Court remanded the case to the Trial Court for decision afresh after affording both the sides opportunity of leading evidence and then to decide the case on the evidence already brought on record and the one which was to be brought on the record in remand proceedings‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan Art.. 185(3).
Judgment & Decree
The plaintiff/respondent brought a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of the disputed land which was decreed by the learned trial Court on 16‑9‑1985. The learned appellate Court, however, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff cannot claim superior right as the property on the basis of which he claims such a right was obtained through oral sale and not registered deed. The learned High Court while accepting the revision petition reversed the order of the appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court on the ground that superior right on the basis of tenancy cannot be claimed as it was violative of Shariat. The learned counsel submitted that he claimed first right of pre‑emption on the basis of tenancy in his written statement and had reiterated it in his evidence, but there is no discussion on this issue. He read out the written statement and the evidence of .the defendant/vendee which contained allegation regarding tenancy over the disputed land. It is, however, curious that none of the Courts has decided this question of tenancy and on that count the pre‑emptive right of the parties inter se. Consequently, this appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment is set aside, the case is remanded to the trial Court 'for decision afresh after affording both the sides opportunity of leading evidence and then to decide it on the evidence already on record and that which is to be brought on the record. No order as to costs. M.B.A./K‑37/S Case remanded.