1999 PLP 2239 (SCMR)
MAHMOOD AHMED and 16 others — Petitioners Versus AZIZ and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2239 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan and Sh. Riaz Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | MAHMOOD AHMED and 16 others — Petitioners Versus AZIZ and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2239 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2239 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan and Sh. Riaz Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2239 (SCMR) (MAHMOOD AHMED and 16 others — Petitioners Versus AZIZ and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu, Advocate Supreme Court. and Muhammad Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Mahmoodul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. l to 3
- Date of hearing: 18th January, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment and order, dated 1-4-1997, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.827 of 1987).
Ss. 15 & 21
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Suit for pre emption
Defence based on suit being for partial pre-emption
Land in dispute was sold in favour of five vendees/petitioners through an oral sale vide mutation and share of all five vendees was different from each other which had been specifically mentioned in mutations
Respondents/pre-emptors filed suit for possession through pre-emption on the ground that they were collaterals of vendor and that their land was contiguous and irrigated through a common watercourse
Suit was decreed by Trial Court
Appeal filed by vendees/petitioners against judgment and decree of Trial Court was dismissed by First Appellate Court on sole ground that a co-vendee had not joined as appellant to assail judgment and decree of Trial Court and that transaction of land in dispute being indivisible decree for partial pre-emption could not be passed
Revision petition filed against said judgment was also dismissed by High Court
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider questions that since share of each of vendees had been specified in mutation. could it be said that it was case of partial pre-emption: whether non-joinder of real brother of respondents/pre-emptors in appeal was fatal.
Judgment & Decree
SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.
The facts to brief giving rise to the institution of this petition for leave to appeal are that agricultural land measuring 42 Kanals, 18 Marlas situated in village Khaneki More, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur was sold by Mst. Rehmat Bibi widow and other legal heirs of Ahmed Dir to favour of the petitioners Nos. l and 2 and predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.8 to 17 and respondent No.3 through an oral sale vide Mutation No. 1028, dated 13-12-1973. The share of all the five vendees was different from each other and had been specifically mentioned in the mutation.
2. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for possession through pre emption on the ground that they were collaterals of the vendor and also their land was contiguous and irrigated through a common watercourse. The suit was contested by the petitioners and predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.3 to 7 and petitioners Nos.8 to 17 through common written statement. Respondent No. 3, who was the real brother of the plaintiff, did not contest the suit. Vide order dated 19-5-1982, the suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge. Petitioners Nos. l and 2 and the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.3 to 7 and 8 to 17 filed an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, the Shariat Appellate Bench gave its verdict in Said Kamal's case (PLD 1986 SC 360). The oust Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 19-5-1997 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners on the sole ground that respondent No.3, a co-vendee had not joined as appellant to assail the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the transaction of the disputed land was indivisible and, therefore, decree for partial pre-emption could not be passed. A revision petition filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court vide order impugned.
3. After hearing the learned counsel at length, we are of the view that it is a fit case in which leave should be granted to consider inter alia the following a questions:-- (i) Since the share of each of the vendee had been specified in the mutation, could it be said that it was a case of partial pre-emption? (ii) Whether non-joinder of the real brother of respondents Nos. l and 2 (pre-emptors) was fatal? Order accordingly. H.B.T.-M-318/S Leave to appeal granted.