Find a Lawyer

(a) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 1151

‑‑ Para.. 25 (3)‑Right of pre‑emption‑Persons purchasing land in dispute and ceasing to be tenants before Kharif 1972‑Held, cannot take benefit of provision of para. 25(3).‑[Pre‑emption].

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑

‑‑ S. 115 ‑Revision‑Question relating to right of pre‑emption‑ Qualification of being distant kindred of vender not pleaded in written statement‑Exclusion of evidence in respect of such qualification by trial Court‑Held, justified.‑[Pre‑emption].

Mirza Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioners.

The petitioners, Muhammad Ishaq and others purchased certain land in 1969. It was pre‑empted by the respondent, Muhammad Shafi, tit 1970. The suit was decreed in 1975. The petitioners filed an appeal but without success. Hence this civil revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were cultivating the disputed land as tenants at the time of the sale to their favour and thus they had the first right of pre‑emption but that aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration while decreeing the suit of the respondent who had claimed right of pre‑emption for being owner of the patti in which the land in dispute was situate. The plea of tenancy, which involved a question of fact, was not raised before the trial Court at any stage. Also, the right of pre‑emption conferred on the tenants by means of sub‑paragraph (3) of paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 197 can be made use of by those tenants only who occupied any land as such on or after Kharif 1972. Even if the petitioners were tenants of the dispute land in 1970, when the sale in question had taken place, they had cease to be so before Kharif 1972 on account of having purchased the said land. Therefore, the petitioners could not take the benefit of the said provisions of law.

2. It was also urged by learned counsel that the petitioners had led oral evidence showing that they were distant kindred of the vendor but that evidence had not been taken into account while deciding the question relating to right of pre‑emption. Admittedly, the said qualification was not pleaded by the petitioners in their written statement and since their evidence in respect thereof was beyond the scope of their pleadings, the learned trial Court was justified in excluding the same from consideration.

3. No other plea was raised by the learned counsel.

4. This civil revision, therefore, fails. It is dismissed in limine.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.