Law: Muhammadan Law

Section: 4 , 3

P L D 1995 Quetta 29 Regular First Appeal No.23 of 1994, decided on 15th December, 1994. Muhammadan Law- ---- Pre-emption-failure to make Talbs in prescribed manner-.-Effect-  Evidence on record was indicative of the fact that Taps-i-Ishhad had not been made properly and in accordance with procedure prescribed for it ---Talbs must be made not only in prescribed manner, but in unequivocal terms, otherwise right of pre-emption could not be claimed-- -None of the witnesses while stating about Talb-i-Ishhad had referred to Talb-i-Muwatht`bat having been made earlier-.Deposition of witnesses being self-contradictory, plaintiffs failed to prove making of Talbs in prescribed manner-- - Plaintiffs having not proved their pre-emptive right were not entitled to claim pre-emption relating to land in question. Mohammedan Law by D.F. Mulllah; PLD 1959 Dacca 64; PLD 1978 Kar. 732; PLD 1987 Quetta 215; Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law, 1977 Pakistan Edition; Muhammad Luqman v. Amir Ali PLD 1969,Dacca 64 and Digest of Mohammedan Law written by Neil B.E. Baillie rel. Muhammadan Law--- . Pre -emption --Making of Talb-i-Ishhad---Essentials---Talb-i-Ishhad should be made against seller, if property sold was still in his possession, or against purchaser, or upon the property sold; it should h: made in presence of not less chart two witnesses; and while making T alb-i-Ishhad, reference was required to be made to Talb-i-Muwathibat. Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law, 1977 Pakistan Edition and Muhammad Luqman v. Amir Ali PLD 1969 Dacca 64 rel., Date of hearing: 29t June, 1994. JUDGMENT JAVED IQBAL, J: --This is an appeal preferred under section 4(3) of Balochistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application) Regulation, 1976 against the judgment and decree dated 27-4-1994 passed by learned Majlis-e-Shoora Loralai, whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed.     Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession through pre-emption in the Court of Majlis-e-Shoora Loralai, against the defendants/respondents with the averment that respondent No.l is owner of the agricultural land bearing…