SCMR 1989

1989 PLP 1760 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others Petitioners Versus Hafiz GHULAM YASIN Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 151‑P of 1988, decided on 22nd May, 1989.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 PLP 1760 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others Petitioners Versus Hafiz GHULAM YASIN Respondent
Primary Law North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1760 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1760 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1760 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others Petitioners Versus Hafiz GHULAM YASIN Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950)‑‑

Representation

  • Abdus Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
  • Ncmo for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1989.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, D.I. Khan, dated 5‑6‑1988, passed in Civil Revision No. 52/1986). ‑‑‑S.12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pinciple of sinker had rightly been applied against the alleged owners who joined strangers with them in the sale in suit‑‑Suit of plaintiff, held was rightly decreed.

Judgment & Decree

USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, D.I. Khan, whereby civil revision of the petitioners was dismissed. Hafiz Ghulam Yasin respondent pre‑empted the sale of 54 kanals 3 marlas of land situate in village Qazi Khokhar, Tehsil and District D.I. Khan in Khatas No.56/161 to 164, 56/1 and 94 on behalf of Saifullah vendor in favour of Muhammad Hassan, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Imtiaz, Muhammad Bakhsh and Ghulam Muhammad, vide Mutation No.22 attested on 21‑9‑1978. The suit is mainly contested on the principle of sinker. It is also a fact that Saifullah vendor vide Mutation No.21 sold 21 kanals 5 marlas of land out of Khata No.56/164‑165 to Muhammad lqbal, Muhammad lmtiaz, Muhammad Bakhsh and Ghulam Muhammad and vide Mutation No. 23 the said Saifullah sold his entire share in Khata No.56/162‑163 to Muhammad Hassan, Muhammad lqbal and Muhammad Imtiaz. Hence vide Mutation No'1 Muhammad Ilassan is excluded from the suit khata and similarly vide Mutation No.23 Muhammad Bakhsh and Ghulam Muhammad are not purchasers through this mutation, in the said khata. Hcnce it is clear that Muhammad Bakhsh has no pre‑emptive right in Khata No.56 and similarly, Muhammad Bakhsh and Ghulam Muhammad do not possess pre emptive rights who were joined in the sale under suit vide Mutation No.22 make themselves strangers to the owners Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Imtiaz and deprived them of their right of pre‑emption. The District Judge and the High Court have rightly applied the principle of sinker against the vendees/petitioners. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the principle of sinker has rightly been applied against the alleged owners who joined with them the strangers in the sale m suit. The suit of the plaintiff/respondent was rightly decreed throughout in all the Courts below. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length, we have not been able to find any justification for interference with the impugned judgment which does not suffer from any legal defect. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused. M.A.K./M‑927/S Petition dismissed.