Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Revision No. 1959-D of 1983 and Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 789 and 790 of 1987, decided on 15th February, 1987.
---S. 115--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21--Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of--Pre-emption suits dismissed by Trial Court but decreed by Appellate Court--Revision by defendants--Joint prayer by parties that revision petition be disposed of in accordance with terns of agreement arrived at between them, allowed by High Court- Permission also granted to parties for enforcement of said agreement in respect of minor, for whose benefit tents of agreement appeared to be--Decrees granted in favour of pre-emptor/ respondent were set aside and instead a decree for possession through pre-emption for part of property was granted in favour of respondent--Suits of pre-emptor with respect to remaining property would stand dismissed- Pre-emptor/respondent was allowed to withdraw entire sale price including 1/5th of pre-emption money deposited by him Revisions were disposed of in terms of agreement between parties.
Munir A. Sheikh for Petitioners.
Ch. Khurshid Ahmad for Respondent.
Dilmir and Shamoo sold land measuring 9 Kanals by twelve sales; two for an area measuring 1 Kanal and 10 Marlas in favour of Ali Muhammad and the remaining ten for an area measuring 7 Kanals and 10 Marlas in favour of the sons of Ali Muhammad including four who are still minors. Muhammad, respondent filed twelve suits to pre-empt the sales. The suits were dismissed. However, on appeals by him, the suits were decreed. The vendees filed twelve revision petitions which were admitted to regular hearing. Now the parties have filed applications praying that these revision petitions be disposed of in accordance with an agreement arrived at between them. According to the terms of the agreement, the impugned decrees are to be set aside and instead a decree for possession by pre-emption in respect of three Kanals as described in para. 4 (1) of the application is to be passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners and the suits of the respondent for the remaining six Kanals are to stand dismissed. However, the respondent is to withdraw the entire sale price amounting to Rs.1,08,000 including the 1/5th of pre-emption money already deposited by him in pursuance of the decrees. The petitioners are to distribute among themselves the area measuring 6 Kanals left with them. The parties are to bear their own costs.
2. Applications have been filed on behalf of the minors also for permission to enforce the above agreement on the plea that the same is beneficial to them. Learned counsel for both the parties have asserted that the agreement is entirely to the benefit of the minors. The permission is accordingly granted.
3. Consequently the impugned decrees are set aside and instead a decree for possession by pre-emption in respect of land measuring 3 Kanals as described in para. 4 (1) of the application out of the land in dispute is passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners. The suits of the respondent in respect of the remaining 6 Kanals stand dismissed. The petitioners shall be entitled to distribute among themselves the remaining 6 Kanals in respect of which the suits of the respondents have been dismissed. The respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the entire sale price amounting to Rs.1,08,000 including 1/5th of pre-emption money deposited by him. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
4. This order also disposes of the connected eleven revision petitions and the applications filed therein.
A.A./M-131/L Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer