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.
P L D 1983 Supreme Court 76
Present : Nasim Hasan Shah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ
Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM-Petitioner
versus
Mst. MUKHTIAR BEGUM AND others--Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 19-P of 1980, decided on 20th - November, 1982. .
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 17-11-1979 in C. R. No. 400 of 1979).
N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act (XIV of 1950)
Ss. 4 & 17-Pre-emption-Collusion--Transaction between first and second vendees made earlier than institution of suit by plaintiff-petitioner-Contention as to there having been an intention to defeat petitioner by collusion between vendees, held, not tenable.
S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 20th November, 1982.
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-Leave is sought against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 17-11-1979 whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine.
2. The petitioner instituted a suit for pre-emption in respect of agricultural land measuring 28 kanals 1 marls consisting of five Khasra Nos. 312, 314, 356, 304 and 305 situated in village Jallarian, Tehsil and District Peshawar, sold by Abdul Latif vendor to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 on the basis of Mutation No. 1518 attested on 26-3-1976 on the ground of preferential right of pre-emption. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 vendees transferred the same land to Haji Taj Muhammad respondent No. 4 in recognition of his superior right of pre-emption. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 22-2-1979 with costs. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge which was also dismissed vide order dated 10-7-1979. Then a revision petition was filed in the Peshawar High Court which, as stated earlier, was also dismissed vide the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged only one point before us relating to the collusiveness in the transaction between the first and the second vendees. We do not find any substance in this argument as the transaction between the two vendees i.e. the first and the second was mad earlier than the institution of the suit by the Plaintiff/Petitioner and, therefore it cannot be argued that there was any intention to defeat the petitioner as regards her legitimate rights. The petition is dismissed.
s. A. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer