19898CMR1618 (PLP)
UMAR AYAZ and others Petitioners Versus BEHARAMAND and another Respondents
| Citation | 19898CMR1618 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem. C.J., Shafiur Rahman and Naimuddin, JJ |
| Parties | UMAR AYAZ and others Petitioners Versus BEHARAMAND and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Provicne Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 19898CMR1618 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Provicne Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 19898CMR1618 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem. C.J., Shafiur Rahman and Naimuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 19898CMR1618 (PLP) (UMAR AYAZ and others Petitioners Versus BEHARAMAND and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Aman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Noor Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 15‑3‑1986 of the Peshawar High Court, in Civil Revision No.440 of 1985). ‑‑‑S.12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Finding was one of fact and ‑petitioner himself had taken no step to get the pre‑emption decree set aside Petitioner was bound to hand over possession of the land to respondent‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM C.J.‑‑Beharamand respondent No.I, herein filed a suit seeking a declaration that the decree passed in Civil Suit No.72/1 of 1979 was ineffective as against him and that it was obtained as a result of collusion and fraud between Umar Ayaz, petitioner No.1, herein, and Mohabat, hlian, respondent No.2, herein. Respondent No.2 had, in that suit against petitioner No.1, sought possession of the property (Swam, Gato) through pre‑emption as on the allegation that it was sold to him by one Ali Muhammad. The appellate Court held that it was not a collusive decree as petitioner No.l himself had admitted in his statement before the Trial Court while withdrawing his application for the selling aside of the decree that it was rightly passed. However, it appears that the son of' respondent No.l entered into a transaction of exchange of the property of his father with petitioner No.1 where under property known as `Mainz Oba' belonging to his father was given in exchange fur the property called 'Swam Gato' which was the subject‑matter of the pre‑emption suit. The appellate Court held that this deed of exchange was ineffective as the son of respondent No.l had no authority to exchange his father's property with that of petitioner No.1, and as plat was in possession of petitioner No.1 he modified the decree to the extent that respondent No.] was given the possession of the land known its `Mainz Oba' whose. possession hitherto was with the petitioner No.1 on payment of Rs.14,
000. The modified decree was affirmed by the High Court in revision. The finding on this aspect was one of fact and its the petitioner No. l himself took no step to get the pre‑emption decree set aside, he was bound to' hand over the possession of the land (Mainz Oba) to respondent No.l., herein. There is, therefore, no force in this petition which is dismissed. M.A.K./U‑23/S Petition dismissed.