1995 PLP 955 (SCMR)
BEGUM HAMID MEHMOOD and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MASOOD‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 955 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ |
| Parties | BEGUM HAMID MEHMOOD and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MASOOD‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 955 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 955 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 955 (SCMR) (BEGUM HAMID MEHMOOD and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MASOOD‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all the Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondent (in all the Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 1st February, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22‑6‑1994 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 356, 357 and 358 of 1985). Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption decreed by all the Courts below including the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Petitioner had contended that Courts below had misread evidence and ignored material oral and documentary evidence of delivery of possession of land under the sale and document which was found to be genuine by comparison of thumb‑impression of executant by Finger Print Expert had been discarded for no cogent reason ‑‑‑Khasra Girdawari also supported delivery of possession and that findings of Courts below were based on surmises and conjectures having no basis in the evidence; and established principle of preponderance of evidence in deciding civil cases had been ignored‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider contention raised by petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑These three petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi dated 22‑6‑1994 passed in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 356, 357 and 358 of 1985 involving identical, factual and legal questions.
2. Petitioner in these three cases purchased agricultural land through separate sale‑deeds. Respondent asserting his superior right of pre‑emption pre‑empted the sale through three separate suits. Petitioners while contesting the suits stated that they had orally purchased the suit land in the year 1976 and had obtained possession under the sale on payment of sale consideration; that the possession of the land was handed over to one Sadiq son of Wali Muhammad through an agreement deed, dated 5th March, 1977 and thereafter raised construction over a portion of the suit land as such the suits filed on 5 5‑1980 were barred by time. That the subsequent sale‑deed was merely confirmation of the earlier sale as the sale consideration had already been paid at the time when oral sale took place.
3. After recording the evidence of the parties the plaintiff/respondent's suits were decreed and the petitioners/plaintiffs' appeals and revisions both have been dismissed. Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of the learned High Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the record. It was contended that the Courts below have misread the evidence and have ignored the material oral and documentary evidence of delivery of possession of land under the sale and the document, dated 5th March, 1977 which was found to be genuine by comparison of thumb‑impression of the executant (tenant) by the Finger Print Expert has been discarded for no cogent reasons. The Khasra Girdawari further supported the delivery of possession. That the findings are based on surmises and conjectures having no basis in the evidence. That the established principle of preponderance of evidence in deciding the civil cases has been ignored. Leave is accordingly granted to consider the above contentions. A.A./B‑262/S Leave granted.