1994 PLP 505 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ISA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus QAISER and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 505 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus QAISER and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 505 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 505 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 505 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ISA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus QAISER and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Pervaiz Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jaferi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: ‑‑The petitioner, a vendee has failed in all the three Courts in defending the purchase of land against pre‑emption claim. He seeks leave to appeal.
2. The two grounds urged are that the petitioner had on account of an intermediary purchase become owner in the estate and could for that reason match the right with the pre‑emptor. The second is that the petitioner had led formidable evidence to establish that the vendor was only an ostensible owner, he himself being the Benamidar. The pre‑empted sale amounted to re-conveyance to him in recognition of that right and could not be considered to be an independent sale.
3. The first ground has been taken up before this Court for the first time, finding no place anywhere in the record of the three Courts. Even otherwise it is untenable in view of section 15 of the Pre‑emption Act, whereby an owner of the same estate has a lower entitlement than the heirs of the vendor in which category the pre‑emptors placed themselves.
4. The second ground is totally misconceived. The right of pre‑emption is a right of substitution, whatever defects, reservations and conditions attach to the purchase pass on to the successful pre‑emptor. Such defects reservations and pre‑existing conditions do not affect in any manner the substitution. No ground is made out. Leave to appeal is refused. AA./M‑1898/S leave refused.