Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FATEH MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: AHMAD
1988 S C M R 203
1988 S C M R 203
Present: Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
FATEH MUHAMMAD--Petitioner
versus
AHMAD--Respondent
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.855 of 1980, decided on 17th November, 1987.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15-1-1980 in RSA 15/1980).
Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--
-.--S. 15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emption--Right of--Fact that a tenant had acquired the status of an owner on the basis of the sale which was subject-matter of suit for pre-emption, held, was immaterial qua his preferential right of pre-emption and does not confer superiority in favour of pre-emptor, crucial time to show such superiority of right being the date of sale--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Muhammad Khan and others v. Muzaffar P L D 1983 S C 181 and Jan Muhammad v. Taj Masih 1987 S C M R 1142 ref.
Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 17th November, 1987.
ORDER
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--One Muhammad Yousaf effected the sale of the disputed land in favour of respondent Ahmad. Fateh Muhammad, the petitioner claimed pre-emption in respect of the sale in question on the ground that he was owner of the estate in which the land in dispute was situate. The respondent resisted the suit on the plea that he was in possession of the disputed land as a tenant at the time of its sale in his favour and therefore he had the first right of pre-emption. The petitioner's claim was rejected by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and, therefore he filed a second appeal in the Lahore High Court which also met the same fate vide judgment dated 15th January, 1980.
2. In support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. learned counsel only contended that once the respondent had become the owner of the land by virtue of the sale in his favour, he ceased to be a tenant and therefore had no superior right as compared with the petitioner. However, the learned counsel very fairly conceded that this point now stands finally settled in view of the decision of this Court reported as Muhammad Khan and others v. Muzaffar P L D 1983 S C 181 and Jan -Muhammad v. Taj Masih 1987 SCMR 1142 in which it was held that the fact of a tenant having acquired the status of an owner on the basis of the sale which is the subject-matter of the suit for pre-emption, is immaturities qua his preferential right of pre-emption and does not confer superiority in favour of the pre-emptor, the crucial time to show such superiority of right being the date of sale.
3. As no other argument was raised, we find no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
S.Q. /F-25/5 Petition dismissed.