Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 414 of 1979, decided on 25th November, 1980.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 18‑4‑1979 in R. S. A. No. 208 of 1978).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑
----S. 15‑Pre‑emption‑Superior' right‑Trial Court finding plaintiffs to be owners of estate and none of vendees except for petitioner being owners of estate and petitioner having associated other vendees with him lost superiority of his right‑Contention that transaction of sale was divisible as shares of vendees specifically mentioned in sale‑deed hence transaction in petitioner's favour could be separated ‑ No evidence having been produced to show payment of price having been made by various vendees in specified amounts, no presumption as to divisibility of transaction, held, could arise merely on basis of recital in sale‑deed as to vendees having taken property in specified shares if consideration paid in lump sum.
Abdullah v. Abdul Karim P L D 1968 S C 140 ref.
Sh. Abdul Mannan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 25th November, 1980.
‑Respondents 1 and 2 filed a pre‑emption suit against the. petitioner and respondents 3 to 12 on the ground that they have superior right of pre‑emption than the defendants. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs were the owners of the estate, and none of the vendees except for Mangta, petitioner herein, was an owner of the estate and he having associated the other ten vendees with him had lost the superiority of his right. On this view of the case, the trial Judge decreed the suit in plaintiff's favour. These findings were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot on appeal and also the Lahore High Court in second appeal, and the petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal.
Mr. Shaikh Abdul Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transaction of sale was divisible as the shares of the vendees were specifically mentioned is the sale‑deed and the transaction in petitioner's favour could be separated.
Learned counsel, however, admits that no evidence was produced that payment of price was made by the various vendees in specified amounts. There can, therefore, be no presumption as to the divisibility of the transaction, as held by this Court in Abdullah v. Abdul Karim PLD 1968SC140, merely on the basis of the recital in the deed that the vendees took the property in specified shares, if the consideration is paid in a lumpsum.
The view of the Courts below is in full accord with the rule laid down by this Court and there is, therefore, no merit in the argument advanced in support of this petition.
It is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer