Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 1397‑D of 1981, decided on 1st November, 1981.

‑‑Para. 25 (3)‑Right of preemption‑Conferred on tenant who occupied land as such on or after Kharif 1972‑Petition ers, tenants of disputed land in 1970 when sale in question taking place‑Cannot take benefit of para. 25 (3).

‑‑‑Para. 25 (3) and Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15 ‑Pre‑emption‑Contention that petitioners having led evidence showing distant kindreds of vendor and such evidence not taken into con sideration while deciding question of pre‑emption‑Such qualification not pleaded in written statement as such evidence in respect thereof, held, beyond, scope of their pleadings and Court justified in exclud ing same from consideration.

Mirza Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner.

The petitioners, Muhammad Ishaq and others purchased certain land in 1969. It was pre‑empted by the respondent, Muhammad Shafi, in 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 in 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, 1972 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 disputed land in 1970, when the sale in question had taken place, they had ceased to be so before Kharif 1972 on account of having purchased the said land. Therefore, the petitioners could not take benefit of the said provisions of law.

2. It was also urged by the learned counsel that the petitioners had led oral evidence showing that they were distant kindreds 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 plead ings, the learned trial Court was justified in excluding the same from consideration.

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

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

M. Y. M. 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.