| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 1048 1994 SLD 1048 1994 CLC 2020 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No 14 of 1993, decision dated: 3rd July, 1994 (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 14-11-1992, in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1992)
SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No 14 of 1993, decision dated: 3rd July, 1994 (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 14-11-1992, in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1992)
SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD MALIK
VS
Haji MUHAMMAD BASHIR and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Pre-emption-------Vendee during pendency of suit and before decision could improve his status--Vendee having attained equal status with that of pre-emptor, could defeat suit for pre-emption. (b) Pre-emption--- ---- Improvement of vendee's status ---Vendee during pendency of suit improving his status by purchase of adjoining land and thus bringing his status to the level of pre-emptor ---Mere filing of pre-emption suit by pre-emptor with regard to such land would not deprive vendee of his status with that of preemptor or other pre-emptors unless and until any of the pre-emptor's suit had been decreed in absence of any such decree vendee could not be deemed to have lost his improved status. (c) Pre-emption--- ---- Right to pre-emption ---Maintainability---Plaintiff in order to maintain his suit for pre-emption must establish his right at three different dates viz. date of sale; date on which suit was brought; and the date on which suit was disposed of by the Trial Court---Subsequent loss of status by plaintiff, would in no way affect the rights he possessed at the time when decree in his favour ought to have been passed by the Trial Court---Even if plaintiff's suit was dismissed by Trial Court and he had lost his right pending appeal he was still entitled to decree if otherwise entitled to-it---Date of Trial Court's decree (even if suit was dismissed or decreed) was the date on which if plaintiff's assertion was correct, the decree ought to have been passed in his favour---Plaintiff having no subsisting right at the time of decree of the Trial Court was not ,entitled to decree and he must be non-suited. Kehar Singh v. Mohoman.. Singh and others 1908 PLR Case No. 128 p.385; Jai Narain MSsra v. Phal Narain AIR 1948 All. 192; Baldeo Misi v. Ramlagan Shukul AIR 1924 All. 82; Bhagwan Das v. Mohan Lal AIR 1925 All. 421; Rohan Singh v. Bhau Lal AIR 1931 All. 530; Ram Gopal v. Piari Lal AIR 1921 All. 441; Shankar Lal v. Karari Mal AIR 1924 All. 81; Ghulam Rubani v. Maqbool Khan PLD 1971 Azad J&K 68 and Umrao v. Lachhman and others AIR 1924 All. 448 ref. (d) Pre-emption--- ---- Pre-emption suit---Substituting or adding a new qualification of a preemptor could…
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