Case Details

Citation(s)
1964 SLG 3701 = 1964 SLD 3701 = 1964 PLD 16
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1961, decided on 27th January 1964.
Presented By: Abdul Hamid Khan, C. J. and Yar Muhammad Khan, J
Muhammad Hayat v. Ghulam Murtaza P L D 1949 Lah. 53 rel.   M. Y. Saraf for Appellant.   Sardar All and M. Y. Cheema for
Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.  

Mst. SAHIB NOOR ETC.-Appellants  

VERSUS

  SHAMAS-UD-DIN--Respondent

Law:

Section:

Muhammadan, Law-Pre-emption-Right extends to whole line of heirs and not merely to next and nearest heir at time of sale.   Mst. Sultan Begum v. Sardar Khan and others Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1960 (unreported) ref.   JUDGMENT   ABDUL HAMID KHAN, C. J.-The subject-matter of this letters patent appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 15-2-1962, is a sale deed dated 24-7-1956, executed by Muhammad Alam and Sher Muhammad (Vendors) in favour of Sardar Ali and Fateh Alam concerning the suit land. Three pre-emption suits which were consolidated by the Sub-Judge, Mirpur were filed to pre-empt this sale.   Mst. Sara wife of Sher Muhammad (Vendor) filed the pre- emption suit on 23-9-1956. Shamas-ud-Din a collateral of the vendors filed the suit on 16-7-1957 and Mst. Sahib Noor mother of vendors filed the suit on 3-7-57.   The Sub-Judge by his order dated 30-3-1962, dismissed the suit of Mst. Sara on the ground that as she had been divorced by Sher Muhammad vendor she had no locus standi to file the suit. He also dismissed the suit of Shamas-ud-Din on the ground that that he was a distant Muslim Law-lieu of the vendors as compared to Mst. Sahib Noor the mother of the vendors. He, however, decreed tire suit of Mst. Sahib Noor. Mst. Sara and Shames-ud-Din. went up in appeal t;; the District Judge. Mirpur against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge, Mirpur. The District Judge, Mirput by his judgment dated 20-4-1961. upheld the finding of the Sub-Judge with regard to Mst. Sara but amended the decree of Sub-Judge in so far as Shames-ud-Din was concerned. He being of the view that as Mst. Sahib Noor and Shamas.Ld-Din both were Muslim Law-heirs of the vendors they were both entitled to a decree in their suits in proportion to their shares as Muslim Law-heirs. He, therefore, granted Mst. Sahib Noor a decree for 1/3rd of the sued land on payment of Rs. 3,333/5/4 and Shamas-ud-Din a decree for 2/3rd of the sued land on payment of Rs. 6,666/10/8. Both Sahib Noor as well as Shamas-ud-Din went up in appeal before the Single Bench of this Court against the judgment and the decree of the District Judge, Mirpur. The learned…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register