1989 PLP 959 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SADIO and another — Petitioners Versus JALAL KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 959 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIO and another — Petitioners Versus JALAL KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 959 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 959 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 959 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SADIO and another — Petitioners Versus JALAL KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Dastgir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th May, 1988. . .
- Rao Dastgir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 2-11-1983 of Lahore High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 521 of 1978).
Ss.4 & 15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Pre-emption suit--Whether vendor sold land in question to vendee prior to institution of suit, High Court recording affirmative findings thereon and no reason existing to interfere with such decision--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre‑emption suit. It was dismissed by the trial Court but on applicant it was decreed by the. Additional District Judge, Gujrat. In second appeal by the vendees, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge and restored those of the trial Court.
2. The land in dispute was purchased by Jalal Khan and Muhammad Bashir. Subsequently, they sold it to Muhammad Rafique. Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Sadiq filed a suit for pre‑emption with reference to the sale made in favour of Jalal Khan and Muhammad Bashir. Although they possessed a superior right vis‑a‑vis Jalal Khan and Muhammad Bashir but so far as Muhammad Ra fique was concerned, they were on equal footing with him.
3. The only question for consideration before the Courts was whether Mal Khan and Muhammad Bashir had sold the land to Muhammad Rafique prior to the institution of the suit. The finding of the High Court is in the affirmative and we do not see any reason to interfere with it. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H_/M‑760/S Leave refused.