1989 PLP 642 (SCMR)
TIKKA KHAN and 5 others — Petitioners Versus ABDULLAH KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 642 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | TIKKA KHAN and 5 others — Petitioners Versus ABDULLAH KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 642 (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 1989 PLP 642 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 642 (SCMR) (TIKKA KHAN and 5 others — Petitioners Versus ABDULLAH KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M.Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Bashir Ahmed Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 26th November, 1988.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M.Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Bashir Ahmed Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order' dated 31-1-1987 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, passed in Civil Revision No.502-D of 1986).
S.15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emption suit--Contesting respondent was found by Courts below to be nearer in degree to the vendor as compared to vendees and as such had been rightly declared to have a superior right of pre- emption--Judgments of Courts below were properly based on appreciation of evidence on record--No question of law was raised which might require consideration--Petition for leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioners challenged the ;order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 31‑1‑1987, passed in Civil Revision No.502‑D of 1980. The learned Single Judge by the aforesaid order maintained the order dated 17‑11‑1980 of the Additional District Judge, passed m appeal filed by the petitioners against order of the Civil Judge, in favour of the respondent No.1 in a pre‑emption suit for possession of the suit land measuring 32 kanals 13 marlas with share of Shamilat and well, situate at Mauza Mangot , owned by one Fatch Din. Tikka Khan petitioner and others purchased the suit land for Rs. 55,000 vide registered sale‑deed dated 5‑3‑1978. This sale was pre‑empted by two different pre‑emptors in two separate suits. One by Mst. Karim Jan, real sisti‑,r of Fateh Dm vendor and the other by Abdullah Khan, a residuary, respondent No.l herein. Both the suits were consolidated by the learned trial Judge. and after recording evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the suit in favour of the present respondent No.l. Thereafter, the petitioners went in appeal before tlae Additional District Judge, Jhelum, who vide his order dated 17‑11‑1986 dismissed the appeal. A civil revision of the petitioners before the High Court was, also dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal before us. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we feel, that admittedly petitioners are collateral of the vendees in two rival pre‑emption suits brought by Mst. Karim Jan, the real sister of Fateh Din vendor and Abdullah Khan respondent No. l the residuary, of the vendor. The right of Mst. Karim Jan pre‑emptor is at par with that of the vendees. As far as respondent No.l Abdullah Khan is concerned, he is at nearer qiegree in relation to the vendor as compared to vendees, therefore, he has rightly; been declared by the Courts below to have a superior .right of pre‑emption. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the judgments of the Courts below are properly based, on appreciation of evidence on record. No question of law is raised in the petition which may require consideration by this Court. Thus finding no force in this petition, which is dismissed accordingly and I leave to appeal is refused. A.A./T‑33/S Leave to appeal refused.