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.
1983 C L C 2853(1)
[Lahore]
Before Fazal‑e‑Mahmood, J
MUHAMMAD (THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)
‑Appellant
versus
Mst. ZAINAB AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 23 of 1983, decided on 8th May, 1983.
‑‑ S. 4 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑Pre‑emption, superior right of‑Pre‑emptor should be related to vendor in reason able degree in order to succeed to estate ‑Pre‑emptor, held, not obliged to show that he is only heir who shall succeed to estate‑No fault having been found with approach of two Courts below, inter ference declined in second appeal.
Sh. Abdur Rashid for Appellants.
Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Khan Meo for Respondents.
The sole ‑ point being urged by the learned counsel for appellants in support of this appeal is that there was nothing to show that the pre‑emptor would succeed as an heir to Mst. Rehmat Bibi and therefore, the recognition of superior right of pre‑emption was misconceived.
2. Having heard the learned counsel, I do net think that this is the real spirit of Punjab Pre‑emption Act. All that is required to be done the pre‑emptor is that he is related to vendor in a reasonable degree which may entitle her to succeed to the estate. The wording of the section doe not permit of an interpretation that a pre‑emptor should show that he is the only heir we shall succeed to the estate. Therefore, in my view, no faul could be found with the approach of two Courts below and no interference/ is called for in this second appeal.
3. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel in support of this appeal..
This appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed. .
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer