| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 924 1985 SLD 924 1985 SCMR 1725 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1979, decision dated: 12-06-1985 (On appeal from the judgment, dated 4-11-1978 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R. S. A. No.880 of 1978)
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, NASIM HASAN SHAH AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1979, decision dated: 12-06-1985 (On appeal from the judgment, dated 4-11-1978 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R. S. A. No.880 of 1978)
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, NASIM HASAN SHAH AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. RAZ KHANUM BIBI--Appellant
VS
. NAZIR AHMAD and others--Respondents
Law:
Section:
Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-----Ss. 15(b) & 13--Pre-emption right--Plaintiff who was daughter of vendor (who had no other male issue and had died meanwhile) pre-empting sale on the footing that she had a superior right than respondents, who claimed to be vendor's reversioners--Held, order of succession was to be determined with reference to personal law of parties and when that was determined, person entitled to succeed in order of succession was the person first entitled to pre-empt. The words "in order of succession" which, in the situation which is being examined, will mean that under Islamic law if there is a contest between "sharers" or in a given case some "sharers" or some "residuaries", who, for example, succeed simultaneously and no one excludes the other and each succeeds up to the extent of his share, then, as the order of the succession is the same and none succeeds prior and in preference to the other, the suit will fail if the pre-emptor and the vendee are heirs of the above categories. However, if the vendee is an utter stranger, then the whole body of heirs, failing them two or more thereof, and failing them any individual or a class or a group can sue for the whole bargain. This position is made clear by section 13 of the Act itself which is headed as "joint right of pre-emption how exercised" and states that--"Whenever according to the provisions of this Act, a right of pre-emption vests in any class or group of persons, the right may be exercised by all the members of such class or group jointly, and, if not exercised by them all jointly, by any two or more of them jointly and, if not exercised by any two or more of them jointly, 'by them severally, i.e. individually." This is so, because, the right is to vest in the persons concerned "in order of succession" which simply means the order in which persons inter se would be entitled to inherit. Consequently, there is no scope for introducing the concept, if it can be so termed, "propinquity of relationship". The order of succession is to be determined with reference to the Personal Law of the parties and when that has been determined the person entitled to succeed in order ofโฆ
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