Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 13(3),13(2)

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 13(3),13(2)

Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)-------S. 13(3)---Service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad---Proof---In order to prove service of such notice, pre-emptor was legally obliged to place on record "acknowledgement due" along with postal receipt of such notice and produce in evidence two truthful witnesses thereof---Non-fulfilment of such legal obligation by pre-emptor would have its own effect according to facts of each case---Principles. Malik Muhammad Ashhab for Petitioner. Respondent: Ex parte vide order, dated 15-10-2008. Date of hearing: 27th October, 2008. JUDGMENT ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.--- This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-4-2005, whereby the learned Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the respondent. 2. The respondent namely Muhammad Jaffar in the instant, petition instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption against the petitioner. In the plaint it was contended that the petitioner purchased a piece of land measuring 10 Marlas situated at Daula Burhan from one Muhammad Amin through Mutation No.316 dated 29-10-1985 for a consideration of Rs. 11,000 the respondent being Shafi Shareeq and Shafi Jar has a superior right to pre-empt the sale of the suit-land (fully described in the plaint). The pre-emptor/respondent, who had fulfilled the requirement of Talbs as envisaged in law, therefore, is entitled for the decree prayed for. 3. The suit was contested by the petitioner, who controverted the averments of the plaint while filing the written statement. It was specifically stated in the written statement that the petitioner has failed to fulfil the requirements of Talbs and had no superior right to pre-empt the sale made in favour of the petitioner. The learned trial Court framed as many as six issues out of the pleadings of the parties. Parties to the case adduced their respective evidence. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments, finally decided Issues Nos.1, 2 and 3 against the respondent, whereas Issues Nos.4 and 5 were decided in his favour and finally the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 29-9-2004. The respondent being dissatisfied of the judgment and decree preferred an appeal,…

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