| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 1388 2011 SLD 1388 2011 PLD 520 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.831 of 2006, decided on 7th March, 2011. (Onappeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench,Multan dated 19-7-2005, passed in R.S.A. No.625 of 1977)
NASIR-UL-MULK AND ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JJ
Civil Appeal No.831 of 2006, decided on 7th March, 2011. (Onappeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench,Multan dated 19-7-2005, passed in R.S.A. No.625 of 1977)
NASIR-UL-MULK AND ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JJ
Mst. NIAZ BIBI through L.Rs.vsGHULAM MUSTAFA and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XX, R.14 & S.47---Decree in pre-emption suit---Scope and import of O.XX, R.14, C.P.C.---Two rounds of litigation---Compromise decree---Irrespective of the fact that actual physical possession was received by the pre-emptor in terms of the compromise decree or not, upon payment/deposit of pre-emption money in court in terms of the decree, pre-emptor acquired absolute title of suit land in her/his favour, therefore S.47. C.P.C. totally lost its efficacy and applicability to the extent of the suit which was based on fresh and distinct cause of action---Principles. A plain reading of rule 14 of Order XX, C.P.C. reveals that for preparation and implementation of decree passed in a pre-emption suit, a particular procedure has been laid down, which provides that manner for payment of purchase money, in case it has not been paid in the court earlier, with delivery of possession of the property to the pre-emptor and the mode and manner through which the title of the pre-empted property shall be automatically acquired by the pre-emptor from the date of payment of pre-emption money. The scope and import of Order XX, Rule 14, C.P.C. is that irrespective of the fact that actual physical possession was received by the pre-emptor in terms of the compromise decree or not, upon payment/deposit of pre-emption money in court in terms of the decree, pre-emptors acquired absolute title of suit-land in his/her favour. In the present case, all the three courts below misread the case record and misdirected themselves as regards the correct factual and legal position qua execution of a decree passed in a pre-emption suit in terms of Order XX, Rule 14 and thus, formed an erroneous view in the matter by giving undue importance to the factum of dismissal of earlier execution application for non-prosecution. Supreme Court in circumstances, recorded a presumption in favour of pre-emptor that it was consequent to the delivery of actual physical possession of the suit land in terms of the report of tapadar, or in the alternate joint possession as co-owner that having already acquired title of the suit land in her favour after payment of…
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