Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: JAFAR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: SAID AHMAD
1988 S C M R 1636
1988 S C M R 1636
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
JAFAR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner
versus
SAID AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.245 of 1985, decided on 31st May, 1988.
(From the order dated 10‑12‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in R.S.A. No.47 of 1977).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Civil Procedure . Code (V of 1908), S.100‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑Petitioner claiming superior right on assertion of being owner in the estate‑‑Suit dismissed on ground that vendee had also become owner in the estate before institution of the suit‑‑District Judge coming to a contrary conclusion but his finding set aside by High Court in second appeal‑‑View taken by High Court not suffering from any infirmity, leave to appeal refused.
M.Ahmad biasan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A . Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Amir slam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 31st May, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition arises out of a pre‑emption suit which was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal was decreed by the District Judge. However, in second appeal the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge and restored those of the trial Court.
2. The vendees in this case were four brothers namely, Said Ahmad, Inayatullah, Faiz Ahmad and Hidayatullah. The petitioner who is the pre‑emptor based his superior right on the assertion that he was owner in the estate in which the land in dispute was situate.
3. Three of the vendees namely Said Ahmad, Inayatullah and Hidayatullah were already owners in the estate. The question before the Courts was whether Faiz Ahmad had also become an owner in the estate before the institution of the suit. The trial Court answered this question in the affirmative and dismissed the suit. The learned District Judge came to a contrary conclusion but his finding was set aside by the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find that the view taken by the High Court on the question suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed.
M.I./J‑26/S Petition dismissed