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 Leave to Appeal No.345‑R of 1984, decided on 23rd February, 1985.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 17‑10‑1984 ip Civil Revision No.218/D of 1984).
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.4‑‑Pre‑emption‑ Leave to appeal granted to examine whether transaction sought to be pre‑empted was in fact not sale, and other related questions.
Ali Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Fazal and another P L D 1973 Lah. 207 ref.
Mansoor Ahmed, Advocate and Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1985.
‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 17‑10‑1984 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Civil Revision arising out of a decree for pre‑emption passed in favour of the respondent‑plaintiff, was dismissed.
Father of Sawar petitioner had sold 7 Kanals 12 Marlas of land to Bostan father of Gulfam respondent. The petitioner and his brother Nazar Hussain filed a suit for pre‑emption which was decreed on the basis of compromise in 1964. Despite payment of the decretal amount and alleged delivery of possession to the petitioner and his brother, the land continued to be shown in the revenue papers as belonging to Bostan. The petitioner's case is that although some land was shown as transferred to Nazar Hussain in pursuance to and in execution of the compromise pre‑emption decree, the remaining piece of land measuring 3 Kanals 17 Marlas continued to be shown in revenue papers in the name of Bostan. It was further asserted by the petitioner that in July 1978 a document purporting to be a sale‑deed was executed by Bostan in his favour showing consideration money as Rs.1,500. This document, it is the case of the petitioner, was executed only in confirmation of the earlier decree for pre‑emption passed in favour of the petitioner. About the sale consideration being shown as Rs.1,500 in the deed learned counsel for the petitioner has explained, it might have been received by Bostan not as sale price but as consideration for completing the documentation. Be that as it may Gulfam Hussain respondent filed a suit for pre‑emption regarding the so‑called sale made by his father through the said deed. Despite the petitioner's above‑stated pleadings Gulfam respondent's suit was decreed. Petitioner's appeal and revision having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
Learned counsel has taken us through the record and has also cited Ali Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Fazal and another P L D 1973 Lah. 207 in support of this petition.
After hearing him we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to examine the plea that the transaction sought to be pre‑empted1A was in fact not sale and other related questions.
Order Accordingly. Security Rs.2,500.
Stay order passed on 31‑12‑1984 shall continue. Records of the earlier suit, the proceedings regarding execution of the decree and the revenue records relating to the said execution and/or the mutation regarding the alleged sale made by Bostan in 1978 in favour of Sawar shall, on furnishing particulars thereof within a month by the petitioner's Advocate‑on‑Record together with the records of this case, be summoned.
M. I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer