Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 851 1993 SLD 851 1993 CLC 1252
Lahore High Court

ABDUL MAJID TIWANA, J
Chudhry Muzamil Khan for Petitioners. Sheikh Abdul Aziz for
Respondent

NOOR MUHAMMAD and others

VS

AHMAD DIN

Law:

Section:

Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--- ----S. 15---Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), para. 25---Superior right of pre-emption---Tenancy was not one of the qualifications for basing right of pre-emption or. for making a ground of defence in a suit for pre­emption at the time suit was instituted by pre-emptor claiming superior right of pre-emption on basis of being owner in estate---Martial Law Regulation No.115 adding new qualification of tenancy having been enacted during pendency of suit, had no retrospective operation to affect pending proceedings---Said newly-enacted law would not snatch away from plaintiffs pre-emptors the. superior right of pre-emption based on their ownership in estate at any stage and would retain superiority of pre-emption rights from start to finish. Hassan and others v Fancy Foundation PLD 1975 SC 1 ref. JUDGMENT Allah Ditta vendor had sold a piece of land mesuring 84 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in the area of village Khurpa, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot, to Ahmed Din defendant, the predecessor of present respondents on 8-5-1969 for a sum of Rs.2,000 by :means of a consent decree. On the basis of this decree sale mutation was sanctioned on 13-3-1970. Noor Muhammad and three others, the petitioners herein, had brought a suit for possession through pre­emption against Ahmed Din claiming their superior right of pre-emption on the basis of their being owners in the estate. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 5th of November, 1975. Ahmed Din vendee filed an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Sialkot, which was dealt with by an Additional District Judge, Sialkot, who vide his judgment and decree, dated 3-2-1977, accepted the same and dismissed the suit by reversing the findings of the trial Court on issue No.l which is in the following terms:- "Whether the plaintiffs have superior right of pre-emption? OPP. Aggrieved by these findings, the plaintiffs brought this civil revision. 2. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners that the fact of their being owners in the estate and their opponent being a stranger stood admitted on the record but the learned Additional District Judge impressed by the…
🔒
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