P L D 1982 Lahore 568 (PLP)
SULTAN MUHAMMAD AHD 3 others‑Appellants Versus NAWAB KHAN AND another ‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1982 Lahore 568 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ryas, J |
| Parties | SULTAN MUHAMMAD AHD 3 others‑Appellants Versus NAWAB KHAN AND another ‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1982 Lahore 568 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1982 Lahore 568 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Ryas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1982 Lahore 568 (PLP) (SULTAN MUHAMMAD AHD 3 others‑Appellants Versus NAWAB KHAN AND another ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Jaffar for Appellants.
- Date of hearing : 24th April 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ S. 15‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑Doctrine of sinker‑Land purchased by vendee not separable from that of his co‑vendees and his precise share in sale price not known and hence sale not divisible‑Held, vendees found .to be tenants and having associated with them a stranger, would be hit by doctrine of sinker.
Judgment & Decree
The only question involved in this regular second appeal is with regard to the application of. doctrine of sinker to the pre‑emption suit giving rise to this appeal. The land involved in the suit was purchased by four persons, namely, Sultan Muhammad, Ahmed. Khan, Muhammad Khan and Saadat Khan. Out of them Sultan Muhammad, Ahmed Khan and Muhammad Khan were held to be the tenants of the disputed land but this qualification was not possessed by Saadat Khan. He was found to be a stranger. By applying the doctrine of sinker, therefore, the suit was decreed against all of them.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the sale in dispute was divisible and, therefore, the suit could succeed only to the extent of the land purchased by Saadat Khan.. In this connection, he invited my attention to the sale deed in which the land purchased by Saadat Khan has been separately shown. Threre is, however, nothing in the sale deed indicating as to how Saadat Khan had shared the sale price which has been mentioned in lump sum. The land purchased by Saadat Khan cannot be separated from that of his co‑vendees as his precise share in the sale price is not known. The sale in the instant case is, therefore, not divisible. As a result, the vendee who have been found to be tenants would be hit by the doctrine of sinker du to their having associated with them a stranger. ‑
3. In this view of the matter, this appeal fails. It is dismissed in limine. S. Q. Appeal dismissed