1983 PLP 2853(1) (CLC)
‑Appellant Versus Mst. ZAINAB AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 2853(1) (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal‑e‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | ‑Appellant Versus Mst. ZAINAB AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 2853(1) (CLC)?
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 1983 PLP 2853(1) (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal‑e‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 2853(1) (CLC) (‑Appellant Versus Mst. ZAINAB AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdur Rashid for Appellants.
- Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Khan Meo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 4 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑Pre‑emption, superior right of‑Pre‑emptor should be related to vendor in reason able degree in order to succeed to estate ‑Pre‑emptor, held, not obliged to show that he is only heir who shall succeed to estate‑No fault having been found with approach of two Courts below, inter ference declined in second appeal.
Judgment & Decree
The sole ‑ point being urged by the learned counsel for appellants in support of this appeal is that there was nothing to show that the pre‑emptor would succeed as an heir to Mst. Rehmat Bibi and therefore, the recognition of superior right of pre‑emption was misconceived.
2. Having heard the learned counsel, I do net think that this is the real spirit of Punjab Pre‑emption Act. All that is required to be done the pre‑emptor is that he is related to vendor in a reasonable degree which may entitle her to succeed to the estate. The wording of the section doe not permit of an interpretation that a pre‑emptor should show that he is the only heir we shall succeed to the estate. Therefore, in my view, no faul could be found with the approach of two Courts below and no interference/ is called for in this second appeal.
3. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel in support of this appeal.. This appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed. .