| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 2342 2019 SLD 2342 2019 PLJ 23 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
C.A. No. 268 of 2017, decision Dated: 30.05.2018. Hearing Dated: 29.05.2018. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court Dated 26.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2012).
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Abdul Razzq Chaudhary, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Raja Khalid Mehmood Khan, Advocate
C.A. No. 268 of 2017, decision Dated: 30.05.2018. Hearing Dated: 29.05.2018. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court Dated 26.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2012).
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Abdul Razzq Chaudhary, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Raja Khalid Mehmood Khan, Advocate
GHULAM RASOOL SHAH
VS
MST. FATIMA BIBI AND 9 OTHERS
Law: AJ&K Pre-emption Act, 2016
Section: 20
Law: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978
Section: O.XLVIII,R.4,5
AJ&K Pre-emption Act, 2016-- ----S. 20--Right of prior purchase--Scope of--Suit for possession on basis right of prior purchase--Preferential right--Sale deed--Co-sharer--Status of vandees and vendor--Appreciation of record--It was proved that pre-emptor as well as vendees are co-sharer on basis of documentary evidence, then oral evidence cannot be given preference over documentary evidence and on basis of oral evidence findings recorded by learned trial Court could not be reversed. AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978-- ----O. XLVIII, Rr. 4 & 5--Inherent powers--Judgment was not challenged by respondent/defendant--Though, respondents, herein, have not challenged and decree passed by learned High Court through cross appeal, but this Court has inherent powers under Order XLIII, Rules 4 and 5 of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, and can pass any and order which ought: to have been passed or made by subordinate Courts--Respondents have not challenged impugned of learned High Court, this Court cannot keep mum and sit as an ideal spectator despite noticing Illegality in impugned --A which is a nullity in eye of law, is liable to be corrected, hence, impugned of High Court is set aside--Appeal was allowed. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, J.- The captioned appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed by the learned High Court in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2012. 2. The facts forming the background of the captioned appeal are that land comprising Khewet Nos. 24, 79, 91, 92 and 108 Khata No. 206, 598, 616, 873 to 875 and 921, total measuring 17 kanal 14 marla, situated in village Chahi was a common property of the plaintiff and the Defendant Nos. 1 to 8. The said land was transferred by Defendants No. 1 to 8 to Defendants No. 9 to 10 in lieu of Rs.9,50,000/-vide sale-deed dated 10.7.2008. Ghulam Rasool, appellant, herein, brought a suit for possession on the basis of right of prior purchase in respect of the aforesaid land in the Court of Civil Judge, Samahani on 26.7.2008. It was claimed by him that Defendants No. 1 to 8 (vendors) are co-sharers in the sold land and in addition to that the plaintiff has…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492