1989 PLP 2944 (MLD)
NAZAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus ABDUL SALAM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2944 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | NAZAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus ABDUL SALAM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2944 (MLD)?
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 1989 PLP 2944 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2944 (MLD) (NAZAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus ABDUL SALAM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Khizar Abbas Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Nasim Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Nemo for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 4 & and 15--Suit for possession of land through pre-emption on ground of ownership in Khata--Suit of respondent was decreed by trial Court and respondent deposited price of land, as determined in the decree--Amount was withdrawn by petitioner and utilised--Judgment and decree of lower Appellate Court challenged on sole ground that there was no `Talabs' made in accordance with Islamic injunction--Held, petitioner's having accepted a certain amount as price of land and his conduct constituting independent bargain of sale between petitioner and respondent, petitioner was estopped from challenging rights of respondents as owners thereof.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Nasim Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 to
3. Nemo for Respondent No.4. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit for possession of land through pre emption against the petitioner on the ground that they were owners in the Khata. This was decreed by the learned trial Court on 1-11-1987. The respondents deposited the price of the land in the learned trial Court as determined in the decree. The petitioner filed appeal against the said judgment and decree before the learned lower appellate Court which has been dismissed through judgment and decree dated 6-6-1988. This revision petition is directed against both these judgments and decrees.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record order of the learned trial Court evidencing that the said price amounting to Rs.1,25,000 was received by the petitioner on 6-3-1988 which was allowed to be withdrawn by them on their application moved on 27-7-1980. '
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner frankly admitted that the said amount was withdrawn by the petitioner and utilized but submitted that he was ready to refund the said amount to respondents Nos.1 to 3.
4. The judgments and decrees have been challenged on the sole ground that there were no 'talabs' made in accordance with the Islamic Injunction, therefore, the suit could not have been decreed after 31-7-1986. Even if that be so, the petitioner's having accepted an amount of Rs.1,25,000 as price of the land and his this conduct can safely be held to constitute independent bargain of sale between him and respondents Nos.1 to
3. He is now estopped from challenging the rights of respondents Nos.1 to 3 as owner thereof. Even otherwise I am not inclined to exercise my discretion under section 115 C.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, in these circumstances. This revision petition- is hereby dismissed without any order as to vests. M.Y.H./N-248/L Petition dismissed.