Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

Section: 15 , 100

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

  Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-- ----S. 15---Superior right of pre-emption -Pre-emptor claimed superior right of pre-emption on ground of being collateral of vendors and also owner of estate--Vendees contended that as Trial Court had not framed any specific issue with respect to pre-emptor's pica that he was owner of estate, suit of pre-emptor could not be decreed on that ground---Court having struck issue with regard to superiority of right of pre-emption separate issues were not required to be framed in respect of each and every qualification alleged by pre-emptor for claiming right of pre-emption. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLI, R.27---Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913). S.15---Additional evidence ---.Appellants/vendees neither had filed earlier alongwith written statement any document showing that they were owners of estate nor any such document was relied upon by them---Appellants at belated stage were rightly refused permission to produce additional evidence---Appellants guilty of lack of vigilance in presenting their case carefully at proper time, were to blame for consequences of their default. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 100---Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.15---Second appeal-- Concurrent finding of Courts below that pre-emptor was owner of estate, but that qualification was not possessed by vendees, based on evidence on record, could not be interfered with in second appeal. Sh. Abdul Mannan for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th February, 1991. JUDGMENT This regular second appeal has arisen out of a suit relating to certain land sold by one Nazir Ahmad and three others in favour of appellants, Ali Muhammad and another. The said land was pre-empted by the respondent, Mehnga by means of a suit. It was alleged by him that he was a collateral of the vendors and also owner of the estate but the   appellants did not possess either of the said qualifications or any superior qualification and, therefore, he had a right of pre-emption against them. The Senior Civil Judge who decided the suit found that the respondent had failed to establish that he was a collateral of…