1988 PLP 1388 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHAHNAWAZ and others — Petitioners Versus KHURSHID ALAM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1388 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAHNAWAZ and others — Petitioners Versus KHURSHID ALAM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1388 (SCMR)?
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 1988 PLP 1388 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah 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 1388 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHAHNAWAZ and others — Petitioners Versus KHURSHID ALAM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1988.
- Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and decree dated 3-12-1984 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Civil Revision No.403 of 1984).
S .21--Pre-emption suit--Leave to appeal granted to consider question that where the original vendee does not transfer the entire land to the second set of vendees, can it be regarded as a case of sale in recognition of the latter's superior right. ORDER
Judgment & Decree
SAAR SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioners are pre‑emptors. Their suit was decreed by the trial Court and the vendees' appeal before the Additional District Judge failed. However, in revisional jurisdiction, the High Court modified the decree, allowing the petitioners to purchase a very small part of the property in dispute. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The sale which was the subject‑matter of the suit was effected by a registered sale‑deed executed on 22‑5‑1979. The land transferred by the sale‑deed measured 59 kanals and 8 marlas. Before the petitioners could bring the suit, the vendees sold 58 kanals and 1 marla out of the said land to Khurshid Alam, Muhammad Zarif and Zafarullah, hereinafter called the second vendees. The petitioners sought to pre‑empt the sale effected on 22‑5‑1979 on the ground that they were owners in the estate. It is not disputed that the original vendees did not possess this qualification. However, the second vendees too were owners in the estate. The case of both sets of the vendees was that the sale made in favour of the second vendees was in recognition of their superior right. This plea was rejected by the trial Court as well as by the Additional District Judge. However, the High Court accepted it in revisional jurisdiction.
3. The question for consideration is that where the original vendee does not transfer the entire land to the second set of vendees, can it be regarded as a case of sale in recognition of the latter's superior right. This question requires examination.
4. 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/ direction to the parties to file additional necessary documents, if any. M.B.A./M‑477/S Leave granted.