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.323 of 1979, decided on 18th February, 1985.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15‑2‑1979, passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 217 of 1978).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15‑‑Right of pre‑emption‑ ‑Courts below had arrived at concurrent finding of fact that petitioners were not tenants on land‑‑No question of law was raised and no plea of misreading of evidence or omission on part of Courts below to consider any material portion of evidence on record pointed out‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 19th February, 1985.
‑‑Suba and another (petitioner herein) seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 10‑2‑1979, dismissing their R.S.A. in a pre‑emption case.
2. Facts, briefly, are that the petitioners purchased 17 Kanals 16 Marlas of agricultural land in Mauza Kot Sondha, District Sheikhupura, from one Shahzad Ali Khan vide Mutation No. 153, dated 8‑9‑1973. The respondent, however, filed a suit to pre‑empt the sale on the ground of being a joint Khatedar of the vendor. The suit was contested by the petitioners on the plea that being tenants on the land in question they had superior right of pre‑emption as against the respondent. On the basis of the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court it gave a finding that none of the petitioners was tenant on the land in dispute. It, therefore, decreed the suit. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 1‑3‑1978.
They then filed an R.S.A. which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and gone through the relevant portions of the judgments of the Courts below.
4. We notice that all the three Courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioners were not tenants on the land in question. The learned counsel neither raised any important question of law nor has he been able to point out any misreading of evidence or omission on the part of the learned Courts below to consider any material portion of the evidence on the record. We do not, therefore, consider it a proper case to interfere with the abovenoted concurrent finding of fact at this stage.
The petition is consequently dismissed. .
A.A. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer