Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 483 of 1984, decided on 29th October, 1984.

--S. 15--Suit for pre-emption--Superior rights--Establishment of--Pre-emptor claimed superior right on basis of ownership of plot contiguous to pre-empted property--Said plot was purchased by petitioner through unregistred sale-deed and person from whom plot was alleged to have been purchased denied such transaction--In absence of registgered sale-deed especially in view of denial of executor, title of plot could not be taken to have passed to petitioner--Petitioner, could not be accepted to be owner of such contiguous plot, as such pre-emptor had no superior right to that of vendees in circumstances.

Ch. Iqbal Muhammad Bhatti for Petitioner.

Islam Ali Qureshi for Respondents.

The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition seeking revision of the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Delia Ghazi Khan, dated the 11th July, 1984, accepting the respondents' appeal against the Judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Taunsa Sharif, dated the 10th April, 1983, and dismissing the petitioner's suit for possession by pre-emption of a plot of land situate within the limits of Town Committee, Taunsa Sharif, are these. Mahmood and Ghulam Rasool, respondents, purchased the plot in question from one Yar Muhammad. Claiming that he owned the plot contiguous to the plot in dispute. Muhammad Yaqub, petitioner, instituted suit to pre-empt the sale. According to the petitioner he had purchased the contiguous plot from Fazil and Ramzan by means of unregistered deed of sale for Rs.870. The learned trial Court accepted the petitioner to be owner of that plot and decreed his suit. However, the learned appellate Court below took the contrary view that the petitioner was not the owner of the plot and consequently non-suited him.

2. Admittedly the petitioner is having litigation touching the contiguous plot with Fazik and Ramzan who deny having sold it to him. The document through which he states he acquired right of ownership by purchase from Fazil and Ramzan was not registered. In the absence of registration it could hardly be taken to have passed title to the petitioner especially when its execution was being denied by Fazil and Ramzan. In these circumstances the petitioner could not be accepted to be the owner of the contiguous plot and to be in enjoyment of right of pre-emption superior to that of the respondents. His suit was rightly dismissed. There is no room for interferei.ce with the decision of the learned appellate Court below. This petition is without any force and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

H.B.T. Revision dismissed.