Law:

Section:

Punjab Pre emption Act (I of 1913)--- Ss. 4 & 21 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3) Right of pre emption, exercise of Pattadar (lessee) of suit land When the suit¬ land was sold, the pre emptor was Pattadar and not co owner of the suit land High Court found pre emptor not entitled to exercise right of pre emption and the suit was dismissed Validity Pre emptor having been found to be a Pattadar i.e. a lessee throughout, he could not be permitted to say that he being a tenant had a preferential right of pre emption over the suit land Judgment by High Court did not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity in that there had been no misreading or non reading of the record Judgment being based on correct, careful and elaborate appreciation of the legal and admissible evidence on record, the same did not warrant any interference in the exercise of discretion by Supreme Court Leave to appeal was refused. JUDGMENT RANA BHAGWANDAS, J. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23 11 2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, accepting Regular Second Appeal No.249 of 1981 filed by the respondent No.1 and setting aside the determination of status of the petitioner in relation to a suit for pre emption. 2. Petitioner as well as respondent No.1 are rival pre emptors. They pre empted the sale effected through registered sale deed dated 4 6 1973 in favour of the vendees. Claim of the petitioner for asserting his right of pre emption was on the basis of being tenant of the suit land as also co owner in the estate while respondent No.1 claimed to be owner in the estate and co sharers in the Khata. Both the suits were consolidated and after evidence, learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of petitioner taking the view that he had been able to establish his status as tenant at the time of sale. Accordingly, the Civil Judge directed that in case the petitioner failed to deposit the pre emption money, second decree stood granted in favour of respondent No. 1 to the extent of 35 Kanals, 3 Marlas and in favour of the petitioner to the extent of 4 Kanals, 13 Marlas. Respondents filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree but without any…

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