1991 PLP 30 (SCMR)
GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM ASGHAR (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 30 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Law Reforms Regulation (1972), M.L.R. 115, para. 25‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Pre:‑emption suit‑‑"Sinker", rule of‑‑Where a vendee having an equal superior right of pre‑emption had associated with himself a stranger i.e., a person having inferior right of pre‑emption than the pre‑emptor, rule of "Sinker" would apply and suit be decreed unless sale in question was divisible‑‑Such condition having not been fulfilled, vendee's petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Abdul Hafeez Memon, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM ASGHAR (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 30 (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 1991 PLP 30 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Law Reforms Regulation (1972), M.L.R. 115, para. 25‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Pre:‑emption suit‑‑"Sinker", rule of‑‑Where a vendee having an equal superior right of pre‑emption had associated with himself a stranger i.e., a person having inferior right of pre‑emption than the pre‑emptor, rule of "Sinker" would apply and suit be decreed unless sale in question was divisible‑‑Such condition having not been fulfilled, vendee's petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Abdul Hafeez Memon, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 30 (SCMR) (GHULAM HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM ASGHAR (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Islam Ali Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasim Jafry Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th June, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 9‑10‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in R.SA. No.29 of 1974). ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Law Reforms Regulation (1972), [M.L.R. 115], para. 25‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Pre:‑emption suit‑‑"Sinker", rule of‑‑Where a vendee having an equal superior right of pre‑emption had associated with himself a stranger i.e., a person having inferior right of pre‑emption than the pre‑emptor, rule of "Sinker" would apply and suit be decreed unless sale in question was divisible‑‑Such condition having not been fulfilled, vendee's petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑Out of the vendees only Mir Muhammad was a tenant whereas the remaining 3 co‑vendees namely Ghulam Hussain, Muhammad Ali and Atta Muhammad were not tenants and strangers in so far as the question of pre‑empting the sale was concerned. Hence the Courts below held rightly so, that the principle of "sinker" applied. This Court has also recently, while disposing of Civil Appeals Nos.10/83, 20/83, 45/85, 103/85, 337/85, 365/85 and 218/86, held "that in pre‑emption suits where a vendee having an equal superior right of pre‑emption associates a stranger i.e. a person having an inferior right of pre‑emption than the pre‑emptor, the rule of sinker will apply and the suit decreed unless the impugned sale is divisible i.e. it is a sale wherein not only the share of each vendee is specified but the amount paid towards the price by each vendee is also specified." These conditions were not fulfilled in this case by the pre‑emptors. Dismissed. AA./G‑313/S Leave refused.