Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SYED ALI VS Respondent: ABDUL KHALIQ
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Abdus Sattar, Mujibur Rahman Khan Title: SYED ALI vs ABDUL KHALIQ Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 72-D of 1969 Civil Revision
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 1970 SCMR 345 Result: Leave refused Judgment JUDGMENT M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioner purchased an agricultural land by a registered kobala, dated the 20th February 1964, for a consideration of Rs. 500. The respondent, a co-sharer tenant applied for pre- emption of that land within four months of the date of receipt of the notice of the transfer: It was alleged before the trial Court on behalf of the transferee that the application or pre-emption was time-barred inasmuch as the pre-emptor had knowledge of the transfer from the date of transfer as he was an attesting witness to the kobala by which the transfer was made. The trial Court overruled the objection with regard to limitation and granted pre-emption. The order granting pre- emption was maintained by the appellate Court and also by the High Court. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal from the High Court's judgment maintaining the order of pre- emption. According to section 96 of the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, a co-sharer tenant may claim pre-emption within four months of the service of the notice given under section 89 of the said Act. Section 96 further provides that if no notice has been served under section 89, the pre-emption may be claimed within four months of the date of the knowledge of the transfer. The service of notice of a transfer is obligatory under section 89 and section 96 gives a co-sharer tenant a statutory right to seek pre-emption within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such notice. In the instant case, the pre-emption was claimed within the said statutory period of four months. The Courts below were, therefore, right in holding that application for pre-emption was within time. The petition is dismissed.