Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 2045 2000 SLD 2045 2000 CLC 1654
Sindh High Court
Civil Revision Application No.27 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.48 and 52 of 2000, decision dated: 28-02-2000
BEJBRE GHULAM RABBANI, J
Zahoor Ahmed Arain for Applicant

MUHAMMAD ALI --Applicant

VS

YAR MUHAMMAD and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Muhammadan Law----- Pre-emption---Suit for pre-emption ---.Making of Talb-e-Muwathibat--­Delay---Effect---Evidence on record had established that first demand (Talb­e-Muwathibat) was not made by the pre-emptor immediately, but was made after getting knowledge of sale of suit land---Effect---Entitlement to right of pre-emption could' only be created when pre-emptor asserted his right immediately on receipt of information of sale of suit land ---Talb-e­Muwathibat having not been made by pre-emptor immediately---Suit was rightly dismissed. Islamic Law (Principles of Muhammadan Law) ,by D.F. Mulla, Pakistan Edn. by Dr. M.A. Mannan, para.236 ref. (b) Muhammadan Law--- ---- Pre-emptor---Talb-e-Muwathibat made by attorney---Only a person previously authorised by pre-emptor could make the demand. Islamic Law (Principles of Muhammadan Law) by D.F. Mulla, Pakistan Edn. by Dr. M.A. Mannan, para.236 ref. ORDER The applicant has impugned the judgment and decree, dated 31-12-1999 passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Nawabshah dismissing his appeal filed against the decree, dated 12th December, 1998 passed by the learned IInd Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah whereby the suit of the applicant/plaintiff viz F.C. Suit No.50 of 1995 for pre-emption was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court in the above suit, had framed in all 10 issues out of which except issue No.5 were decided in his favour, however, the remaining issue No.5, which relates to the making of requisite demand was decided against him and while doing so, learned trial Court based its judgment entirely on the finding given on the said issue and dismissed his suit. His grievance is that learned trial Court has decided the said issue without appreciation of the material evidence available on record in its true spirit inasmuch as that the requisite jumping demand (Talab-e-Mowasbat) made duly by attorney of the applicant has been considered devoid of legal force. Similarly, learned counsel viewed that the Appellate Court has maintained the finding of trial Court without applying its mind judiciously thereby, committing :an illegality. Next he averred that the said…
🔒
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