Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1001 of 1979, decided on 24th February, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑9‑1979 in R.S.A. No. 151 of 19.78).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

‑

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑Petitioner claiming to have purchased suit land on strength of a receipt, seeking possession‑‑Purchase of land not disclosed in pre‑emption proceedings‑‑Suit for possession dismissed on ground that sale was not proved‑‑Concurrent finding of two Courts upheld Conduct of petitioner and vendor in not disclosing sale in proper proceeding at proper time making sale transaction shady‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.

Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.

Date of hearing: 24th February, 1985.

ORDER

While Muhammad Bakhsh respondent No. 1 was involved in a pre‑emption suit with respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner claimed to have purchased on the strength of a receipt the land which was the subject‑matter of pre‑emption suit without respondents No. 2 or 3 pleading so in the pre‑emption suit or the petitioner intervening in the pre‑emption suit on the basis of such purchase. He independently obtained a consent decree against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and wanted to stall the pre‑emption decree obtained by Muhammad Bakhsh in the pre‑emption suit. His suit for possession of the land was decreed against the three respondents but the District Judge held the sale as not proved and on appeal dismissed the suit. The learned Judge in the High Court upheld that finding.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sale stood proved and should have been given effect to and the decree of pre‑emption obtained by Muhammad Bakhsh respondent against the other two respondents was of no avail to him as the two respondents had already parted with their interest in the land.

Not only that the alleged sale has been found to be not proved by the two Courts the conduct of the petitioner as also the vendors from whom he got the land would show that they did not disclose it in proper proceedings and at the proper time. Their conduct really made the whole alleged transaction to be a shady one and directed towards depriving the decree‑holder of the fruits of his pre‑emption suit. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed.

M.I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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