Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: MEMBER (REVENUE); BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE
1988 S C M R 1244
1988 S C M R 1244
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Petitioners
versus
MEMBER (REV.) BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE and 7 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.282 of 1987, decided on 10th May, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 30‑3‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W.P.No.4570 of 1982).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.4 & 15‑‑Vendee petitioner challenging decree passed by Courts below in suit for pre‑emption filed by respondent on ground that findings of fact given by Trial Court regarding tenancy in respondent's favour were based on misreading of evidence and that suit on basis of tenancy could only be decreed to the extent of part of land and not for entire suit land‑‑Perusal of evidence placed on record showing that findings of fact given by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court regarding tenancy not suffering from any infirmity, legal or otherwise‑‑Leave to appeal .refused in circumstances.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a vendees' petition for leave to appeal in a pre‑emption matter from the judgment dated 30‑3‑1987 of the Lahore High Court; whereby the petitioners' Constitutional Petition was dismissed.
2. According to the learned counsel the respondent /tenant's suit for pre‑emption was decreed. The petitioners' appeal and revision having been dismissed, his Writ Petition has also been dismissed. He has now sought leave to appeal. The learned counsel has contended A that the suit was 'decreed no doubt before 31st of July, 1986; but the findings of fact regarding tenancy in respondents' favour are based on misreading of evidence. According to him, the suit on the basis of tenancy could be decreed only to the extent of 26 Kanals 14 Marlas and not the entire suit land.
3. After hearing the learned counsel at some length and the perusal of the evidence placed on record, we do not agree with him. The findings of fact by the Trial Forum, which were affirmed by the higher forums regarding tenancy, do not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
M.Y.H/G‑94/S Petition dismissed.