| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 3050 = 2001 SLD 3050 = 2001 YLR 219 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 72 of 1984, heard on 13th February, 2001.
Presented By: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J
Amir Rehman for Appellants. Nemo for
Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 72 of 1984, heard on 13th February, 2001.
Presented By: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J
Amir Rehman for Appellants. Nemo for
Respondent
MUHAMMAD ALAM and 3 others‑‑‑Appellants
VERSUS
ALI SHER and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
Law: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)
Section: 4, 15, 21
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913) Ss.4 & 15‑‑‑Right of pre‑emption‑‑ Doctrine of sinker‑‑‑Where a vendee joined another person with him in a sale who was not possessed of a right superior or equal to that of the pre‑emptor, notwithstanding the fact that the said person did possess such a right, he would sink with the co‑vendee and unless it was pleaded and proved that the sale was divisible, he would not be able to even defend the sale to his own extent‑‑‑Where a vendee joined a stranger with him at the very inception of the sale, it constituted a deliberate or voluntary act on his part, but not so when all the vendees were not possessed of a right superior or equal to that of a pre‑emptor and some of them came to acquire such a right by operation of law or inheritance during the pendency of the pre emption suit. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913) Ss. 4, 15 & 21‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑ Superior right of pre‑emption ‑‑‑Both Courts below decreed the suit holding that pre -emptors being owners in the estate had superior right of pre‑emption and that the vendees being not owners in the estate could not resist the suit‑‑‑Three out of the four vendees had acquired land on the death of their father through inheritance during pendency of the suit and became owners in the estate and fourth one also acquired land through inheritance on the death of his father during pendency of final appeal‑‑‑All the vendees, in circumstances, had become owners in the estate during pendency of pre emption proceedings before the Trial Court and Appellate Court below and they having acquired right of pre‑emption equal to that of the plaintiff, pre‑emption suit filed by the pre- emptors could not succeed‑‑‑Concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below were set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Gulzar and others v. Muhammad Anwar and others 1991 SCMR 112 ref. , Date of hearing: 13th February, 2001. …