Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 592‑P of 1983, decided on 4th March, 1984.

(Against the judgment/decree of Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad, in R.S.A. No. 30 of 1976, decided on 23‑7‑1983.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Finding of fact recorded by Courts below that sale of disputed property took place and completed on a certain date‑‑No law point raised requiring further examination by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused. ‑‑[Pre‑emption].

Ghulam Ahmed v. Muhammad Sarwar 1968 S C M R 573 and Lal and others v. Mian Dad and another 1968 S C M R 842(2) cited.

Qazi Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 4th March, 1983.

‑‑ The petitioner, an unsuccessful plain tiff‑pre‑emptor, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated, 23‑7‑1983 whereby a second appeal filed by him challenging the dismissal of his suit in first appeal was dismissed.

The petitioner pre‑empted a sale of 60 Kanals of land in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, which took place on 2nd of January, 1973. The vendees took up the plea that they had sold the land purchased by them in favour of respondent No.l in recognition of her superior right of pre‑emption. The superior right of pre‑emption of respondent No.l was not challenged. What was challenged was that the sale reported to the Patwari on 1‑10‑1973 within the period of limitation was not in fact complete and a sale within the period of limitation, for the mutation in respect of it was attested on 18‑9‑1974 long after the expiry of the period of limitation. The District Judge in first appeal examined this aspect of the case and held that the sale had taken place within the period of limitation and the petitioner stood on account of it non‑suited.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended on the strength of decisions in constitutional petitions challenging the entries in the revenue record that a mere report to the Patwari does not clothe anyone with any title or interest in immovable, property. He has relied on Ghulam Ahmed v. Muhammad Sarwar 1968 S C M R 573 and Lal and others v. Mian Dad and another 1968 S C 11 R 842(2) in support of it. It is contended by him that the sale in favour of respondent No.l would be deemed to be complete on 18‑9‑1974 when the mutation was, in fact, attested.

We find from the record that a finding of fact has been recorded that the sale was in fact complete on 1‑10‑1973. This would also appear from the proceedings that took place in mutation and appeal there from. Such sale was not required to take place by mutation alone. It could be oral as well. So the petitioner cannot claim that the sale was not complete on 1‑10‑1973, or was dependent for its completion on the attesting order of the Revenue Officer. There is no law point raised such as may require further examination by this Court. Leave to appeal is refused.

S.Q. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.