1986 PLP 763 (SCMR)
KHAIR DIN and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. QUDRAT ULLAH — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 763 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | KHAIR DIN and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. QUDRAT ULLAH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 763 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 763 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 763 (SCMR) (KHAIR DIN and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. QUDRAT ULLAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Afzal Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court with Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- M. Afzal Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court with Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 31-5-1980, in R.S.A. 188/80).
Art. 185(3)--Finding of fact fully supported by sound reasons and cogent evidence on record--No reason shown to disturb such finding nor any principle of law involved to take exception to view of relevant Courts--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 31‑5‑1980, in R.S.A. 188/80). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Finding of fact fully supported by sound reasons and cogent evidence on record‑‑No reason shown to disturb such finding nor any principle of law involved to take exception to view of relevant Courts‑‑Leave to appeal refused. M. Afzal Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court with Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑‑It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details and stages through which this case passed, and it will be sufficient for the purpose of the present order to state, that the petitioners claim an equal right of pre‑emption against Ch. Qudrat Ullah, plaintiff /respondent whose suit against them has been decreed. It is admitted that the unity of the transaction of sale cannot be separated and as Sikandar one of the vendees was a stranger as against the pre‑emptor, therefore, all the vendees from that point of view had an inferior right of pre‑emption against him i.e. the plaintiff.
2. However, it was submitted that the aforesaid Sikandar had before the institution of the suit got an area of 3 Kanals and 2 Marlas by way of gift from his father whereby he became a co‑sharer, therefore, the said improvement enured for the benefit of all the co‑vendees to make their status in that respect equal to the plaintiff. The course below have disbelieved the plea of gift on factual plane and have given cogent reasons in support of their views. It was held that neither the donor nor the donee had appeared in the witness‑box to prove the declaration of gift, the acceptance of gift and the delivery of possession there under. In this state of affairs, we feel that there is nothing to disturb the aforesaid finding of fact and nor is there involved any principle of law to take exception to the views of the relevant Courts
3. The result is that this case is concluded by a finding of fact which is fully supported by sound reasons and cogent evidence on the record. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.