Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MOLA BAKHSH VS Respondent: Mian MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Manzoor Hussain Sial, Saad Saood Jan Title: MOLA BAKHSH vs Mian MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 316-L of 1993 Date of Judgment:1994-05-29 Reported As: 1995 SCMR 909 Result: Leave refused
Judgment ORDER ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. CJ.---This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 9-2-1993 whereby the decree passed by the District Judge, Bahawalnagar, in a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent was upheld. 2. By a registered deed dated 9-1-1980 Mst. Ghulaman sold about 67 Kanals and 9 Marlas of agricultural land situate in village Behramka of Tehsil Minchanabad to the petitioner. The property sold included the vendor's share in the means of irrigation and the Shamilat Deh. On 20-11-1980 the respondent brought a suit for pre-emption. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal it was decreed by the District Judge, Bahawalnagar. The petitioner's revision petition before the High Court failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. 3. The only contention raised in support of this petition is that it was a case of partial pre-emption inasmuch as the respondent had not asked for relief in respect of the Shamilat Deh and the rights in the means of irrigation; consequently, no decree could be passed in his favour. There is no merit in this contention. The evidence indicates that the vendor had no share in the Shamilat Deh nor was there any well from which she drew water for irrigation. However, that may be, the respondent had offered to pay the entire consideration which the petitioner had paid to the vendor. There was no reason why he should have omitted to seek relief in respect of any of the rights sold by the vendor to the vendee. At the worst, it could be a case of unintentional omission which could not be equated with partial pre-emption. Leave is refused.