Case ID |
384c967e-6b0d-4eea-a4de-6a97db4cfc93 |
Body |
View case body. Login to View |
Case Number |
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 442 |
Decision Date |
Jul 02, 1986 |
Hearing Date |
|
Decision |
The Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal against the dismissal of the vendee's revision by the Lahore High Court. The main contention was that the vendee had an equal right of pre-emption based on a prior purchase of land in the same Khatta. However, the Court found that the sale-deed presented by the vendee was deemed spurious, lacking evidence and proper registration. The High Court's observations indicated that the vendee's claim was not adequately substantiated, and subsequent pleas for additional evidence were not pursued effectively. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, confirming the earlier decisions of the lower courts. |
Summary |
This case revolves around the legal principles of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the issue of whether the vendee had a valid claim to pre-empt the sale based on a prior transaction. The Court highlighted the importance of evidentiary support in establishing ownership rights and the necessity for appropriate documentation in property transactions. The decision underscored the requirement for clarity in legal claims concerning property rights, particularly in cases of co-ownership. The ruling serves as a significant reference for future cases involving pre-emption and property disputes, reinforcing the need for robust evidence in legal proceedings. |
Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
Entities Involved |
Not available
|
Judges |
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH,
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN
|
Lawyers |
Mian Inamul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court,
Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record
|
Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD SADIQ
|
Respondents |
MUHAMMAD KHAN
|
Citations |
1986 SLD 939,
1986 SCMR 1567
|
Other Citations |
Not available
|
Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)
|
Sections |
Art. 185(3),
S.15
|