Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALI KHAN VS Respondent: MEHBOOB AHMAD KHAN,
1988 S C M R 1577
1988 S C M R 1577
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
ALI KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
Ch.MEHBOOB AHMAD KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.130 of 1985, decided on 7th June, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 8‑12‑1984 in R.S.A. No.141 of 1984).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.4 & 15‑‑Petitioners, owners in estate, brought a pre‑emption suit against stranger who purchased land in estate‑‑Consequent upon some arrangement with stranger/ vendee, suit was withdrawn; but a fortnight later stranger/vendee sold land in dispute to petitioners and eight others‑‑Except for petitioners, other vendees were strangers in estate‑‑Predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents who was also owner in estate brought a suit for pre‑emption in respect of sale made in favour of petitioners and others‑‑Courts below found that as petitioners had joined strangers with them in sale, they were not in a position to resist claim of predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents‑‑Petitioners contended that in sale‑deed executed by vendor in their favour, fields transferred to each of vendees were specifically mentioned and that being so, it could not be treated as indivisible and consequently suit could not have been decreed so far as their share in sale was concerned‑‑Contention requiring examination‑‑Leave to appeal granted.
Ch. Qamruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on-Record for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 7th June, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre‑emption suit which was decreed by the trial Court and its judgment and decree were affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Multan. In second appeal, the High Court declined to interfere with the decisions of the Courts below.
2. One Bunyad Ali purchased the land in dispute measuring 273 kanals and 4 marlas. He was stranger in the estate where the said land was situate. The petitioners who were owners in the estate, brought a suit for pre‑emption. Consequent upon some arrangement with Bunyad Ali the suit was withdrawn but a fortnight later Bunyad Ali sold the land in dispute to the petitioners and 8 others. Except for the petitioners, the other vendees were strangers in the estate. Habib Ahmad Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos.l and 2, who was also an owner in the estate, brought a suit for pre‑emption in respect of the sale made in favour of the petitioners and others. The Courts below held that as the petitioners had joined strangers with them in the sale they were not in a position to resist the claim of Habib Ahmad Khan.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in the sale‑deed executed by Bunyad Ali in their favour the fields transferred to each of the vendees were specifically mentioned and that being so it was not a case where the sale could be treated as indivisible; consequently, the suit could not have been decreed so far as their share in the sale was concerned.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000. Appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with direction to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months.
In the meanwhile status quo with regard to possession to be maintained.
M.Y.H./M‑263/S Leave granted.