Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUR RASHID VS Respondent: FAYYAZ BEGUM
1988 S C M R 1749
1988 S C M R 1749
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, J,
ABDUR RASHID‑‑Petitioner versus
Mst. FAYYAZ BEGUM‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.231‑R of 1988, decided on 6th July, 1988.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 3‑5‑1988, passed in Regular Second Appeal No.707 of 1980).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Dismissed on ground of mala fides and estoppel‑‑Trial Court's findings reversed in appeal and suit decreed‑‑Decision upheld in Regular Second Appeal‑‑Appellate Court and High Court having found respondent to be clothed with superior right of pre‑emption and no case having been made out for interference by Supreme Court, leave to appeal was refused.
Ch. Hamiduddin, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 6th July, 1988.
ORDER
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated the 3rd May, 1988.
2. Land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos.45, 49, 50 and 109 situate at Mauza Piraghab, Tehsil and District Jhelum, belonged to Muhammad Sadiq, his brother Muhammad Azeem and his two sisters, namely, Mst. Zarina Bi and Mst. Sakina Bi. Through Mutation No.4910 attested on 2‑10‑1973 this land was sold to Abdur Rashid for a sale consideration of Rs.10,500. The sale was pre‑empted by Mst. Fayyaz Begum, daughter of Muhammad Sadiq and niece of the other vendors, on the ground of superior right of pre‑emption. The sale consideration was also disputed. The suit was contested by the petitioner on a number of grounds including mala fides and estoppel. The latter two issues prevailed with the learned trial Judge who dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 8‑5‑1978. On appeal, however, the learned District Judge, Jhelum, vide his judgment dated 8‑6‑1980, reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the respondent. This decree was upheld by the High Court through the impugned judgment.
3. The learned appellate as well as the High Court have held the respondent to be clothed with superior right of pre‑emption. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the evidence and findings of the two Courts below, we are afraid that no case has been made out for our interference in the matter. The petition is dismissed.'
M.I./A‑279/S Petition dismissed.