| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 229 1980 SLD 229 1980 SCMR 278 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 62 P of 1978, decision dated: 30-09-1979 (On appeal from the judgment and decree dated 9 5 1978 of the Peshawar High Court at Peshawar in R. S. A. No. 34 of 1973).
MUHAMMAD HALEEM AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JJ
Khan Bahadur Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate on-Record. Nemo.
Civil Petition No. 62 P of 1978, decision dated: 30-09-1979 (On appeal from the judgment and decree dated 9 5 1978 of the Peshawar High Court at Peshawar in R. S. A. No. 34 of 1973).
MUHAMMAD HALEEM AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JJ
Khan Bahadur Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate on-Record. Nemo.
DIYAR KHAN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)
VS
SHER FARZAND AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ---- Art. 185 (3) read with N. W.F.P. Pre emption Act (XIV of 1950), S. 5 (c) Questions raised on behalf of petitioner standing concluded by findings of fact reached by Courts below No justification made out for interference with such findings Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. [ Finding of fact]. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. This petition for leave to appeal arising out of a pre emption matter has been filed by a vendee defendant. It calls in question the judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby the regular second appeal filed by him was dismissed. The suit property is stated to be a house. Mst. Shama. its owner filed an earlier suit against the father of the petitioners for its redemption as according to her the same was mortgaged with him. That suit was ultimately withdrawn on the basis of a compromise on 18th October 1967, the plaintiff had conceded that the property was in fact sold to the petitioners' predecessor in interest and that it was not a case of mortgage. The respondents who are brothers inter .se then filed a suit for pre emption on the assumption that the sale took place on the admission of the owner qua the sale and on the withdrawal of the suit. There had been three rounds of litigation involving two remand orders. In the last round the learned trial Judge decreed the suit. The first and second appeal filed by the present petitioners having been dismissed they have now moved this petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel has raised the following three contentions in support of this petition: (1) That the right of pre emption was claimed on ground of contiguity. According to the statement made by Sher Farzand plaintiff (respondent No. 1) he' owned the house contiguous to the suit property. And because Muhammad Afzal plaintiff (respondent No. 2) is not the owner of the contiguous house therefore, both the plaintiffs would, as has been put, "sink together." Hence they have not succeeded in establishing the right of pre emption; (2) That under section 5 (c) of the N. W. F. P. Pre emption Act (XIV of 1950) the property being a house would be exempted from pre emption because the petitioners'…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492