1991 PLP 1542 (SCMR)
Malik SULTAN MAHMOOD through Legal Heirs — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1542 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | Malik SULTAN MAHMOOD through Legal Heirs — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (b) Co-sharer |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1542 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (b) Co-sharer as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1542 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1542 (SCMR) (Malik SULTAN MAHMOOD through Legal Heirs — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taj Muhammad Khan Langah, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Uadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th June, 1990.
- Taj Muhammad Khan Langah, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Uadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 13-11-1988 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 5 of 1981).
S. 15
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Petitioners' pre-emption suit on basis of being a co-sharer in Khata dismissed by Trial Court as also by High Court
Petitioner being purchaser of specified field numbers from sole owner of Khata could not be regarded as a co-sharer, in remaining khasra numbers included in the Khata
High Court and Trial Court were thus, right in holding that petitioner was not a co-sharer in the property of remaining Khasra numbers ultimately purchased by respondents
Leave to appeal was refused.
Purchaser of specified field numbers from sole owner could not be regarded as a co-sharer in the remaining Khasra numbers included in the Khata.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit for pre‑emption filed by the petitioner. It was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal it was decreed in his favour by the Additional District Judge, Multan. In revision preferred by the respondent, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate. Court and restored the Judgment of the trial Court.
2. The claim of the petitioner to superior right was based on the assertion that he was a co‑shier in the Khata of which the land in dispute formed a part. It is to be noticed that the Khata was exclusively owned by one Waheed Muhammad who sold specific Khasra numbers of the Khata to the petitioner. Subsequently he sold other specified numbers to Mst. Kaniz Fatima who in turn sold the same to the respondent. As the petitioner was a purchaser of specified field numbers from the sold owner of the Khata he could not be regarded as a co- sharer in the remaining Khasra numbers included in the Khata. The High Court and the trial Court were, therefore, right in holding that he was not a co‑sharer in the property ultimately purchased by the respondent. There is no merit in this petition and it is hereby dismissed. A.A./S‑599/S Petition dismissed.