Sections 9 and 20 apply the principle of per capita share of the property between the pre-emptor and the vendors. Can share Due to their shared ownership, the vendors (applicants) had the equal right to pre-emption with the pre-emptor (defendants), as they came from the same group of co-owners with the former Importer vendors and The pre-emperor stood on the side of the co-ownership, so he would divide the property into equal shares, without having to put in two parts, where there was more than one umpire, it did not mean that he would take half (1/2). ) And the remaining half (112) will go to the sole seller, but the property will be distributed to all litigation members on the principle of per capita shares. The same principle applies when there is more than one shopkeeper and there is only one umpire of Sections 9 and 20. The Beer Pakhtun Pre-Trouble Act, 1987, were supplementary to each other and could not be separated from each other. Yes, and reading both parts together made it clear that when the vendor and the pre-emptor were in the same class of pre-emptors and were equal. According to the pre-discrimination right, the two would have equal status of property and thereby they would be divided equally. In the present case, there were five shopkeepers and one pre-emptor, so the property was divided into six parts by equal shares. I was to share (1) / share of each) The market value of the suit property was properly calculated by the lower court and the pre-emptor was instructed to sell the property.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
