Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 1279 1994 SLD 1279 1994 CLC 888
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992, decided on 12th December, 1993.
ABDUL MAJEED MALLICK CJ
M. Nisar Mirza for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Yusuf for
Respondents

MUHAMMAD MALIK

VS

MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Waiver-- ---- Proposition relating to waiver being a mixed question of facts and law has to be settled in the light of facts of each case as such no absolute rule could be laid down---Each case has to be decided in the light of its own facts and not by virtue of a precedent as, ordinarily, like human conduct and nature, facts of each case might also differ. [p. 890] A PLD 1969 Pesh. 118; PLD 1993 AJK 168; 1987 CLC 1855 and 1991 MLD 1714 ref. (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 (B.K.)--- ----S. 18---Notice to persons having right of prior purchase---Essentials---In order to defeat pre-emptor, it was enjoined upon vendor or vendee to prove that pre-emptor was informed of the transaction whereby property in question, was to be alienated to vendee ---Essential elements of such information are to identify (a) property in question; (b) pre-emptor to whom information is given; (c) proposed price; and (d) time when such proposal or offer is made--­Condition of time is essential in the spirit of law, to establish that information was given very close to the period of transaction and not at the distant period of time---Big gap of time is not sufficient to fulfil the condition of notice as provided under S. 18, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act---Identification of property under sale and its proposed price was also essential in the sense as person to whom offer was made, was to be deprived of the statutory right of prior purchase---No person was thus, to be deprived of statutory right of prior purchase, by fabricated, fraudulent and fictitious evidence---In order to defend right of pre-emption on ground of waiver as per terms of S. 18, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rights of Prior Purchase Act, it was not essential that vendee must prove it by giving of written notice---Plea of waiver was permissible to be proved by oral evidence as well. Anwar Baig's case 1987 CLC 1855 rel. PLD 1993 AX 168; Mst. Zar Jan's case PLD 1969 Pesh. 118; M/s. Kausar & Company's case 1991 MLD 1774 ref. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)--- ----S. 137---Omission to cross-examine witness on a particular question of fact---Effect---Where a party deliberately…
🔒
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