| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLG 1296 1996 SLD 1296 1996 CLC 1823 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No.205 of 1984, heard on 7-05-1996
CH. MUHAMMAD NASIM, J
Malik Naseem Muhammad for Appellants. Mian Habib-ur-Rehman Ansari for
Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No.205 of 1984, heard on 7-05-1996
CH. MUHAMMAD NASIM, J
Malik Naseem Muhammad for Appellants. Mian Habib-ur-Rehman Ansari for
Respondent
Haji FAIZ BAKHSH through Legal Heirs
VS
ZAFAR-ULHAQUE
Law:
Section:
Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-------S. 7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100---Right of pre-emption relating to urban immovable property---Right of Custom---Proof---Immovable property which was subject of pre-emption was situated in Taraf Ravi ---Custom of pre-emption was in existence in Taraf Ravi during the year 1913, when Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 was promulgated---Plaintiff thus, had a right of pre-emption relating to property in question---Trial Court had correctly decreed plaintiff's suit for pre-emption while Appellate Court was not correct in holding that right of pre-emption was not prevalent in specified area---Judgment and decree rendered by Trial Court was restored while that of Appellate Court was set aside---Plaintiff's suit for pre-emption was decreed in circumstances. Punjab Record 42 rel. JUDGMENT Evidenced through sale-deed registered on 31-5-1974 Zafar-ul-Haque respondent-defendant purchased house No.9/49 situated in Chah Phairanwala alias Luqmanwala, Taraf Ravi, Mumtaz Abad, Multan from Mst. Zakia Begum for an amount of Rs.5,000. On the ground of contiguity of his house towards the southern and eastern sides of the aforesaid house in dispute purchased by Zafarul-Haque respondent-defendant, Haji Faiz Bakhsh plaintiff-appellant (since deceased at present represented by his legal representatives) instituted his suit to pre-empt the sale. He showed his willingness to pay the sale price in the sum of Rs.5,000. He contended that the custom of pre-emption was prevalent in Muaza Taraf Ravi, Multan wherein the house in dispute was situated. The said suit was resisted by the respondent-defendant who submitted the written statement wherein he contended that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction that the suit house was not properly and correctly described in the plaint, that the pre-emptor had no pre-emptive right who even otherwise had waived the same and that the custom of pre-emption was not prevalent in the locality where the suit house was situated at the time of the coming into force of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. He averred that the had spent an amount of Rs.40,000 upon the…
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