1985 PLP 1329 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASUL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1329 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASUL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1329 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1329 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1329 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASUL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21‑‑Suits for pre‑emption ‑‑Petitioner purchasing land in 1960 and making three more purchases in 1970‑‑Four suits for pre‑emption by plaintiff/respondent‑ Decreed against first purchase in 1972 and against subsequent three purchases in 1976‑‑Order maintained in first and second appeal‑‑Plea that petitioner having become owner in estate on account of subsequent three purchases, had acquired status equal to that of plaintiff /respondent and during subsistence of any of these sales, suit against him could not be decreed, repelled‑‑By time petitioner's appeals came up for decision before District Judge and High Court all four suits had already been decreed and even if cases were remanded to trial Court, result would have been same‑‑Order not being open to interference, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
(ii) Sale of land measuring 1 Kanal and 8 Marlas vide Mutation No.397, dated 26‑2‑1970; (iii) Sale of land measuring 8 Kanals and 9 Marlas vide Mutation No. 398, dated 26‑2‑1970. Muhammad Khan etc. (respondents) filed 4 different suits to pre‑empt each of the abovenoted sales. The respective numbers of these suits were as follows:‑ (i) 238/F/71 (ii) 186/F/71 (iii) 57/468/71 (iv) 189/F/71. Out of these, Suit No. 238/F/71, pertaining to the land purchased through registered sale‑deed, was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents on 18‑12‑1972. The remaining 3 suits' were decreed in favour of plaintiffs‑respondents about 3 years later, on 27‑3‑1976. The petitioners filed appeals in each case, which were decided together by the learned District Judge, Jhelum and were dismissed on the same date i.e. on 5‑6‑1976. The petitioners then filed 4 separate R.S.As. one in each case before the High Court and all of which were dismissed in limine by the same judgment recorded on 23‑9‑1976. Still not being satisfied, the petitioners have come up to this Court, through the present 4 petitions for leave to appeal.
3. The only ground urged by the petitioners' counsel was that (by purchasing three pieces of land subsequent to the first piece purchased by him, petitioner) had also become 'owner in the estate' and had thus acquired a status equal to that of the plaintiffs‑respondents. The counsel submitted that so long as any of these sales subsisted and all the suits against him were not decreed the plaintiffs‑respondents could not inter alia, (sic) that the learned trial Judge could not, decree Suit No. 238/F/71, on 18‑2‑1972, because he was still owner of 3 other pieces of land in the same Estate and was thus, equal in status to the plaintiffs -respondents.
4. We have carefully considered the abovenoted contentions but we are not persuaded to agree with him because by the time the petitioners' appeals came up for decision before the District Judge and the High Court, all the 4 suits had already been decreed, and even if the cases were remanded to the learned trial Court, the result would have been the same. We are, therefore, of the view that no interference in the impugned judgment by this Court, is called for. All the four petitions are, consequently, dismissed as being without any merit. M. I. Petitions dismissed.