| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLD 3143 = 1980 CLC 995 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 1011 of 1978, decided oil 13th October, 1979.
Presented By: Shameem Hussain Qadri, J
Indrai v. Brother Clement A I R 1915 All. 51 (1) ; Haji Ghulam Rasool and others v. The Chief Administrator of Auqaf P L D 1971 S C 376 ; Abdul Wahid Khan v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property P L D 1962 Quetta 72 and Qutub-ud-Din v. Muhammad Siddique and others P L D 1969 Lah. 418 ref. Ghulam Muhammad for Appellant., Syed Sajjad Hussain for
Respondent.
Regular Second Appeal No. 1011 of 1978, decided oil 13th October, 1979.
Presented By: Shameem Hussain Qadri, J
Indrai v. Brother Clement A I R 1915 All. 51 (1) ; Haji Ghulam Rasool and others v. The Chief Administrator of Auqaf P L D 1971 S C 376 ; Abdul Wahid Khan v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property P L D 1962 Quetta 72 and Qutub-ud-Din v. Muhammad Siddique and others P L D 1969 Lah. 418 ref. Ghulam Muhammad for Appellant., Syed Sajjad Hussain for
Respondent.
Regular Second Appeal No. 1011 of 1978, decided oil 13th October, 1979.
Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913
Section: 15
Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) S. 15--Pre-emption-r-Waiver-Plaintiff not mentioning in plaint factum of previous transaction--Neither filing suit for recovery of money advanced to vendor nor filing suit for specific performance of contract-Plaintiff, held, had waived right of pre. emption in circumstances of case.-[Waiver.] Date of hearing : 13th October, 1979. JUDGMENT This second appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned District Judge, Jhelum, dated 10th September, 1978, whereby he reversed the judgment of the trial Court dated 11th December, 1977 and granted decree in favour of the plaintiff' for possession of land by pre-emption on payment of Rs. 4,000. 2. The suit was brought by Adalat Hussain claiming superior right of pre-emption being a co-sharer in the Khata. He also alleged that the sum of Rs. 4,000 was not fixed in good faith and was not actually paid. The suit was resisted by the defendant and on the pleadings of the par ties the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the plaintiff has got superior pre-emption right to that of the defendant ? O. P. D. (2) Whether Rs. 4,000 were fixed in good faith or actually paid as price of suit land ? O. P. D. (3) If issue No. 2 is not proved, what is the market value of the suit land ? O. P. (4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped bye hisr words and conduct to bring the present suit 7 O. P D. (5) Relief. 3. After recording evidence of the 1parties and hearing arguments the suit was dismissed on the basis of waver of right of pre-emption. Before the learned lower appellate Court issue No. 4 relating to the ques tion of estoppel by the words and conduct of the plaintiff was only pressed. It was found that despite the fact that the plaintiff had earlier…