1994SCMR2014 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SIKANDAR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994SCMR2014 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hassan Shah, CJ. |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SIKANDAR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (IX of 1991)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994SCMR2014 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (IX of 1991)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994SCMR2014 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hassan Shah, CJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994SCMR2014 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SIKANDAR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th November, 1993.
- 4. Learned counsel for petitioners at the very outset stated that the pre emptory right of the petitioners did not extend to land measuring 20 Kanals and 13 Marlas alienated out of Khasra No. 1791 because the vendee had acquired the status of co‑sharer on account of a previous mutation of exchange sanctioned in his favour in respect of portion of land from Khasra No. 1791. He, however, vehemently contended that the petitioners had superior right of pre‑emption in respect of 5 Kanals of land comprising Khasra No. 1861, and it was so held by the learned trial Judge. The learned District Judge did not apply his mind to this aspect of the case and hurriedly dismissed the appeal. The impugned judgment of the High Court is contrary to the law laid down in Ali Muhammad v. Shera and another (1987 SCMR 207). The contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioners, prima facie, has some substance.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 24‑5‑1993, in C.R. 155/1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 6‑‑‑Right of pre‑emption ‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether defendant (vendee) could defeat right of pre‑emption in respect of sale of speed part land comprising in specific Khasra number on the strength of having previously acquired status of co‑sharer in a different Khasra number of specified Khewat of the village.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 6‑‑‑Right of pre‑emption ‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether defendant (vendee) could defeat right of pre‑emption in respect of sale of speed part land comprising in specific Khasra number on the strength of having previously acquired status of co‑sharer in a different Khasra number of specified Khewat of the village. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th November, 1993. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Iqbal and his brother Munwar Khan petitioners herein, seek leave to appeal against judgment dated 24‑5‑1993, of the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench), whereby Civil Revision No. 155/1993, filed by them against judgment dated 3‑12‑1992, of the District Judge, Attock, was dismissed.
2. One Muhammad Sharif sold land measuring 20 Kanals and 13 Marlas from Khasra No. 1791 and 5 Kanals of Khasra No. 1861, situate in Moza Basal, Tehsil Pindigheb, District Attock, to Sikandar Khan respondent vide Mutation No. 991 sanctioned on 31‑7‑1991.
3. The petitioners filed suit for pre‑emption on the ground that they are co‑sharers in the Khata and had superior right of pre‑emption qua the vendee. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court and that judgment was maintained in appeal before the District Court and in revision before the High Court. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners at the very outset stated that the pre emptory right of the petitioners did not extend to land measuring 20 Kanals and 13 Marlas alienated out of Khasra No. 1791 because the vendee had acquired the status of co‑sharer on account of a previous mutation of exchange sanctioned in his favour in respect of portion of land from Khasra No. 1791. He, however, vehemently contended that the petitioners had superior right of pre‑emption in respect of 5 Kanals of land comprising Khasra No. 1861, and it was so held by the learned trial Judge. The learned District Judge did not apply his mind to this aspect of the case and hurriedly dismissed the appeal. The impugned judgment of the High Court is contrary to the law laid down in Ali Muhammad v. Shera and another (1987 SCMR 207). The contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioners, prima facie, has some substance.
5. We grant leave to consider as to whether Skindar Khan vendee -respondent, could defeat the pre‑emptory right of the petitioners in respect of the sale of 5 Kanals of land comprising Khasra No. 1861, on the strength of having previously acquired the status of co‑sharer in Khasra No. 1791 of Khewat No. 784 of Moza Basal, Tehsil Pindigheb, District Attock. A.A./M‑1962/S Leave granted.