Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALI MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: FAZEELAT BIBI
1988 S C M R 1549
1988 S C M R 1549
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
ALI MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Petitioners
versus
Mst. FAZEELAT BI BI‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.666 of 1985, decided on 1st June, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30‑4‑1985 in Civil Revision No.885 of 198.
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Right of pre emption‑‑Plea raised by vendees that question of fact regarding relationship between respondent‑pre‑emptor and vendor was not correctly decided‑‑Re‑examination of evidence on record by Supreme Court showed that impugned relationship stood established from direct evidence of personal knowledge of very close relationship and not of opinion (by conduct) expressed by any one on the relationship‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Shah Nawaz v. Nawab Khan P L D 1976 S C 767 ref.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with S.Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 1‑6‑1988.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees' side in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the question of fact whether Mst. Fazeelat Bibi respondent‑pre‑emptor was a cousin of Rashid, the vendor in this case, has not been correctly decided. He has also cited the case of Shah Nawaz v. Nawab Khan P L D 1976 S C 767 to show that the question of relationship has to be decided in accordance with the interpretation by the Supreme Court of Section 50 of the Evidence Act.
We asked the learned counsel to take us through the evidence so as to examine whether any material fact has been ignored or a point of law remained unnoticed.
With his help, we also prepared a pedigree table. It is so short (only one generation above the persons in question is involved) that it was immediately discovered that there is direct evidence of personal knowledge of very close relationship and not of opinion (by conduct) expressed by any one on the relationship; that Rashid and Mst. Fazeelat are established as first cousins. After this exercise, the learned counsel was unable to pursue the petition any further. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.
M.I./A‑256/S Petition dismissed.