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. 1140 of 1980, decided on 15th June, 1982.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
‑ Art. 185(3) and Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15‑Leave to appeal‑Respondent's father selling disputed land to petitioner Respondent minor filing pre‑emption suit for same land through his mother‑Contention that in view of fact that respondent a minor having no independent means of his own, vendor himself getting pre‑emption suit filed in collusion with his wife for his own benefit Question raised, held, of considerable importance leave to appeal granted to consider same.
Nazar Muhammad v. Sardar Muhammad etc .11 L L J 220 fol.
Zakiuddin Pal, Advocate Supreme Court and Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record
for Petitioner.
Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 15th June, 1982.
.‑Muhammad Iqbal and Shah Muhammad sold 427 kanals 3 marlas of land to Imam etc., petitioners, but Saifur Rehman the minor son of Muhammad Iqbal filed a suit to pre‑empt the sale through his mother Mst. Zaitoon Bibi as his guardian‑ad‑litem. Younas, the son of Shah Muhammad, the other vendor, also joined in the suit but subsequently withdrew from it. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by Imam etc. (vendees) before the District Judge was dismissed and the R. S. A. filed by them met the same fate. Hence the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that Shafi‑ur‑Rehman respondent was a minor and had no independent means of his own, it is apparent that Muhammad Iqbal vendor himself got the suit filed in collusion with his wife (Mst. Zaitoon Bibi), for his own benefit, using the name of his minor son for this purpose. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner cited authorities wherein it has been held that where a minor having no means, purchase property it can be assumed by the Court that it was a benami transaction and it was, in fact, the father who had purchased the property in the name of his son, for his own benefit and had paid for it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case also a similar assumption can he safely made, namely, that it is the father who had, in fact, got the suit filed through his wife in the name of his minor son for his own benefit. He contended that this amounts to fraud on the Statute and misuse of the process of Court.
3. The respondent‑caveator on the other hand relied on Nazar Muhammad v. Sardar Muhammad etc. (11 L L J 220), to contend that minor's right of pre‑emption cannot be defeated on this ground.
The question raised is of considerable importance which requires an authoritative pronouncement by this Court. Leave is, therefore, granted to consider the same.
Security in the sum of Rs. 2,500.
4. Stay already granted by this Court shall continue and the case be fixed for hearing during this year.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer