Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2136 2006 SLD 2136 2006 CLC 965
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No.77 of 2004, decision dated: 16-12-2004.
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, 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 NAWAZ

VS

MUHAMMAD ASIM and another

Law:

Section:

Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)-------Ss. 6 & 13---Suit for pre-emption---Making of Talbs---Courts below through concurrent findings, had arrived at the conclusion that plaintiff, despite having knowledge through registered sale-deed of suit property, had failed to make timely `Talbs' in accordance with S.13 of Pre-emption Act, 1991---Courts below through due, proper and threadbare analysis of oral and documentary evidence, had recorded that plaintiff's story of knowledge after about four months of registration of sale-deed, was not only unbelievable, but also totally false---Courts below also came to the conclusion that construction over the suit property was raised immediately after registration of sale-deed and disbelieved plaintiff that he had no knowledge of construction made on suit-land which adjoined that of plaintiff who took about four months to claim knowledge of transaction in question---In absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence, no justification was found to interfere in concurrent findings of fact recorded by Court below. Ch. Muhammad Bashir Goraya, Advocate. ORDER MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.--- The appellant, Muhammad Nawaz, claiming to have superior right of pre-emption filed suit for possession through pre-emption against the respondent to pre-empt sale through registered sale-deed dated 21-3-2000 of the suit property. Knowledge of the transaction was pleaded to have been gained on 16-7-2000 through Tariq Mehmood and the consequent `Talb-i-Muwathibat' and `Talb-i-Ishhad' through notices dated 17-7-2000. The respondent filed the contesting written statement. The issues were framed by the learned trial Court and the evidence was recorded. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit through judgment and decree, dated 15-3-2003. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, through the impugned judgment and decree, dated 26-2-2004. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence has not only been misread but has also been ignored by the learned Courts below. He further contended that there are no major contradictions…
🔒
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