1993 PLP 2346 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHANI and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUMTAZ HUSSAIN AAMER ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2346 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUMTAZ HUSSAIN AAMER ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2346 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2346 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2346 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHANI and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUMTAZ HUSSAIN AAMER ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q.M. Salim, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on- Record for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 29th November 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 11‑3‑1986 of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan passed in Civil Revision No. 152/1986). (a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether three Courts below had misapplied the decision of Supreme Court in Fateh Khan's case 1983 SCMR 293 and that the question of period of possession was misconceived. Fateh Khan v. Abdur Rehman 1983 SCMR 293 ref. ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Evidence on record clearly showed that pre‑emptor the son of vendor was not entitled to pre‑empt the sale made by his father as per rule of Supreme Court laid down in Naseer Ahmed's case PLD 1984 SC 402‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances. Naseer Ahmad v. Arshad Ahmad PLD 1984 SC 402 rel. Respondent: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑This appeal by leave arises is the following circumstances.
1. The appellants purchased 8 Kanals of land of which they were the tenant for Rs. 24,000 through a registered sale deed dated 12‑10‑1980 from Noor Muhammad. The latter's son Mumtaz Hussain Aamer the respondent filed a suit for pre‑emption. After the trial, the learned Civil Judge, Lodhran vide judgment and decree dated 8‑9‑1985 held the appellants entitled to retain the land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla and 3 Sarsahies and for the rent decree was granted in favour of the respondent. The appellants' appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan vide judgment and decree on 20‑2‑1986 and his revision petition by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench vide order dated 11‑3‑1986.
2. At the leave stage it was contended inter alia that the three Courts below had misapplied the decision of this Court in "Fateh Khan v. Abdur Rehman" (1983 SCMR 293) and that the question of period of possession was misconceived. Leave was granted on 11‑6‑1990.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the submissions made at leave stage. It is also contended that the respondent‑pre‑emptor is a son of the vendor and was a student at the time of the sale. The suit was collusive. Nobody appeared to oppose the appeal.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the record with his assistance, we find that in view of the evidence on record the respondent/pre‑emptor the son of the vendor was not entitled to pre‑empt the sale made by his father. Reliance is placed on "Naseer Ahmad v. Arshad Ahmad" (PLD 1984 SC 402). The appeal is, therefore, allowed without order as to costs in the circumstances. A.A./A‑1043/S Appeal accepted.