Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 1081 1994 SLD 1081 1994 KLR 115
Lahore High Court
R.S.A.No. 1352 of I970, 10th January, 1994
MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J

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

Muhammad Shafi, Etc

VS

Bota, (Deceased) Represented By L.Rs

Law:

Section:

Keywords: Inheritance, Evidence, Relief, Co-Sharer, Substitution, Parties, Land, Trial Court, Commencement, Enforcement, Suit For Possession, Provisions, Partition, Pre-Emption, Costs, Existing Rights, Suit For Pre-Emption, Consolidation, Proceedings, Possession, Vested Rights, Property, Registered, Revenue Record, Sale Deed, Modification, Ownership, Vendees, In Lieu, Consolidation Proceedings, Remedy, Allotment, Possession Through Pre-Emption, Superior Right, Consent, Payment, Allotment Of Property, Recording, Estate, Petitioner, Change, Recording Evidence, Place JUDGMENT MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.- This R.SA. Arises out of a suit for possession through pre-emption filed by Boota respondent on 15.7.1968 in the court of Civil Judge, Sialkot Camp-at-Pasroor. The disputed land measuring 10 Kanals and 19 Marlas (increased to l2 Kanals and 11 Marlas after consolidation) was sold by Mst. Rasool Bibi to the appellants through a registered sale deed dated.7.7.1967 (Ex D1). Respondent No.1 claimed superior right on the ground of being collateral of the vendor and a co-sharer in the joint khata. 2. The suit was resisted by the present appellants who filed written statement in the court which gave rise to the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff has a superior right of pre-emption than that of the vendees? OPP. 2. Whether Rs.5,000/- the sale price of the suit land was bona-fide fixed as actually paid? OPP 3. If not, what is the market value of the suit land? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is the barred? OPD. 5. Whether some of the Khasra Nos. Were not sold by the vendor, if so, what are those numbers? OPD. 6. Relief. After recording evidence of the parties the trial court held on issue No.1 that Boota respondent No.1 was a co-sharer in the joint khata and enjoyed superior pre-emptive right. However, his claim of being collateral of the vendor could not be proved. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1 subject to payment of Rs.5,(XX)/-, vide judgment and decree dated 23.2.1970. The appellants filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sialkot vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.1970. 3. The appellant's learned counsel contends…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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