1987 PLP 98 (SCMR)
TARIQ MAHMOOD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 98 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | TARIQ MAHMOOD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 98 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 98 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 98 (SCMR) (TARIQ MAHMOOD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3‑4‑1982 in R.S.A. No. 586 of 1976). Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.15‑‑Pre‑emption‑ Sale of land from joint un-partitioned Khata‑‑Plaintiff‑pre‑emptor admittedly cultivating land under vendor‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider inter alia: that admission made from petitioner's side during trial being against entries in record of rights and made by a layman without any basis, should not have been acted upon; and that vendor could not have sold specific piece of land from a jointly owned Khata without seeking partition in first instance.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1986. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 3rd Apri1,1982, of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Regular Second Appeal arising out of a pre‑emption suit filed by the respondent, was allowed. Mst.Nasim Akhtar vendor had sold to the petitioners her share of land amounting to 80 Kanals from a joint un-partitioned Khatta. The respondent claimed to be the tenant on 72 Kanals out of the sold land and filed a suit for pre‑emption. It was held by the trial Court that the respondent would be deemed to be a tenant of all the co‑sharers and Mst.Nasim Akhtar having sold about 1/12th part of the joint Khata the respondent was entitled to claim pre‑emption only regarding 6 Kanals of land. Respondent's suit regarding the remaining land was dismissed. He filed an appeal, which met the same fate. On his Second Appeal a learned Judge in the High Court, inter alia, held that during the trial an admission was made from the petitioner‑side that the respondent was cultivating land under Mst. Nasim Akhtar. That being so, he was entitled to get the entire land under his cultivation as tenant of Mst.Nasim Akhtar the vendor. Amongst others, learned counsel for the petitioners has also raised the following points: One: That the admission being against the entries in the record oil rights was made by a layman without any basis and should not have been acted upon, and, Two: That in any case Mst. Nasim Akhtar could not have Sold specifics piece of land from a jointly owned Khata without seeking partition in the first instance. Questions raised in this petition require examination. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs . 2 ,
500. M.I Leave granted