1989 PLP 1119 (SCMR)
ABDUR RAHIM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1119 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUR RAHIM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1119 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1119 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah 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 1119 (SCMR) (ABDUR RAHIM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by MA. Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18‑10‑1983 (Bahawalpur Bench) in FA.O. No.19 of 1975). (a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Subsequent sale relied upon by the vendees would have to be treated as of a time after the institution of the suit. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Sale on behalf of minor‑vendee‑‑Contention that sale having been completed before institution of the suit, sanction of mutation after the institution of suit being only a formality could not change the factum of sale‑ Held, whatever language was used on behalf of minor in the agreement of sale, sale on behalf of the minor vendee was not a completed sale but only an agreement to sell till the sanction of the Guardian Judge.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees in a pre‑emption matter against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby their first appeal against the order of remand passed by the first appellate Court, was dismissed. The learned counsel stated that the petitioners 1 to 3 could defend the suit for pre‑emption filed by the respondents' side but the petitioners‑vendees 4 to 7 not being the owners in the estate could not do so. In order to avoid objection of sinker, the non‑owners‑vendees sold their part of purchased land to the other set of the vendees before the filing of the suit by the respondents' side. He also stated that although the transaction about this subsequent sale was completed before the filing of the suit the mutation was attested in that behalf nearly three years after the filing of the suit because one of the vendees transferees being a minor, sanction had to be obtained from the Guardian Judge for making the sale on his behalf. It has been held that the subsequent sale relied upon by the petitioners vendees side would have to be treated as of a time after the institution of the suit. It was, therefore, of no benefit to them. The learned counsel on the contrary, has contended that the sale having been completed before institution of the suit the sanction of the mutation after the institution of the suit being only a formality could not change the factum of sale. It was pointed to the learned counsel that in the impugned judgment the sale on behalf of the minor vendee is mentioned as not a completed sale but only an agreement to sell. Moreover, although the document evidencing this sale has not been produced, it would be otherwise assumed that whatever language used B on behalf of the minor the transaction on his behalf was to remain only as an agreement to sell till the sanction of the Guardian Judge. The learned counsel to be fair to him frankly stated that this was the position. Thereafter he did not press the petition. That being so, leave to appeal is refused and this petition is dismissed. M.BA./A‑471/S Leave refused.