1982 PLP 948 (CLC)
REHMAT ALI ETC.‑‑Appellants Versus CHANNAN DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 948 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | A. Rehman, J |
| Parties | REHMAT ALI ETC.‑‑Appellants Versus CHANNAN DIN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 948 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 948 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: A. Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 948 (CLC) (REHMAT ALI ETC.‑‑Appellants Versus CHANNAN DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Husain Qadrl for Appellants
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913) S. 15‑Preemption‑Concurrent findings based on proper appraisal of evidence produced by parties as also from entries in revenue record not interfered with in circumstances of case.
Judgment & Decree
S. 15‑Preemption‑Concurrent findings based on proper appraisal of evidence produced by parties as also from entries in revenue record not interfered with in circumstances of case. Shahid Husain Qadrl for Appellants Copies of revenue record submitted on behalf of the appellants have been examined. 2. Appellants plea of superior right of pre‑emption was based on their contentions that they were co‑sharers in the joint Khata out of which the disputed land was sold and further that they were also co‑owners of Chah Jaurianwala from which the aforementioned land was irrigated. In support of their contention that they were co‑sharers in the joint Khata, reliance was placed on the statement of the Patwari who appeared as P. W. I in the trial Court, but his above statement was not supported by the entries in the Register of Haqdaran‑i‑Zamin, copies whereof were tendered in evidence by the appellants at the trial and have also now been submitted in this Court. Similarly, their contention that they were co‑owners of Chah Jaurianwala, is not supported by the copy of Naqsha Haqooq Chahat of village Bhaini which was not produced at the trial, but has been placed on the record of this Court. 3. The concurrent findings of the Courts below that the appellant had failed to prove that they had superior right of pre‑emption is, therefore not open to question as it is based on proper appraisal of the evidence produced by the parties at the trial as also from the entries in the revenue record, copies whereof the appellants have placed on the record of this Court. There is no force in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limlne. M. A. K. Petition dismissed.