1988 PLP 859 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASHIQ‑‑petitioner Versus INAYAT ALI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 859 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan. JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHIQ‑‑petitioner Versus INAYAT ALI‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 859 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 859 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 859 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASHIQ‑‑petitioner Versus INAYAT ALI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 1988
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 5‑10‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.43‑D of 1987) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑ Leave to appeal granted to‑examine contention that the vendee was a tenant in the land in dispute and, therefore, the claim of pre‑emptor which was based on co‑ownership could be of no avail to him.
Judgment & Decree
SAAR SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner purchased 11 kanals 3 marlas of agricultural land in village Bazidpur of Tehsil Kasur. and said land fell in two khatas, namely, khata No.44 and. Khata The No.61. The respondent filed a suit for pre‑emption on the round that he was a ca‑sharer in the said khatas. The Senior Civil Judge, Kasur dismissed the suit, holding that he had not been able to establish his superior right. The petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by an Additional District Judge, Kasur. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner conceded that the respondent was a co‑sharer in khata No.61. On the basis of this statement the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit of the respondent le in so far the land in khata No‑61 was concerned. The petitioner preferred a revision before the High Court but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is urged that the petitioner was a tenant in the land in dispute and therefore the claim of the respondent which was based on co‑ownership in the khata could be of no avail against him. In support of his assertion that he was a tenant in the land in dispute, the petitioner has referred to thee admission of the respondent himself which is to the effect:
3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. Status quo with regard to possession be maintained during the pendency of the appeal. S.Q./M‑361/S Leave granted.