Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASHIQ VS Respondent: INAYAT ALIHonorable Justice Saad Saood Jan
1988 S C M R 859
1988 S C M R 859
Present: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan. JJ
MUHAMMAD ASHIQ‑‑petitioner
versus
INAYAT ALI‑‑Respondent
Civil petition No.847 of 1987, decided on 28th February, 1988.
(From the judgment dated 5‑10‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.43‑D of 1987)
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.15‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑ Leave to appeal granted to‑examine contention that the vendee was a tenant in the land in dispute and, therefore, the claim of pre‑emptor which was based on co‑ownership could be of no avail to him.
Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 28th February, 1988
ORDER
SAAR SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner purchased 11 kanals 3 marlas of agricultural land in village Bazidpur of Tehsil Kasur. and said land fell in two khatas, namely, khata No.44 and. Khata The No.61. The respondent filed a suit for pre‑emption on the round that he was a ca‑sharer in the said khatas. The Senior Civil Judge, Kasur dismissed the suit, holding that he had not been able to establish his superior right. The petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by an Additional District Judge, Kasur. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner conceded that the respondent was a co‑sharer in khata No.61. On the basis of this statement the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit of the respondent le in so far the land in khata No‑61 was concerned. The petitioner preferred a revision before the High Court but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is urged that the petitioner was a tenant in the land in dispute and therefore the claim of the respondent which was based on co‑ownership in the khata could be of no avail against him. In support of his assertion that he was a tenant in the land in dispute, the petitioner has referred to thee admission of the respondent himself which is to the effect:
3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. Status quo with regard to possession be maintained during the pendency of the appeal.
S.Q./M‑361/S Leave granted.