MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Versus FAZAL AHMAD

This R.SA. by Muhammad Tufail is directed against the judgment and decree of the Addl. District Judge, Gujranwala, dated 18th of March, 1970 whereby his appeal from 'the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Wazirabad on 2nd of May, 1969 dismissing his suit for possession by pre-emption was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

2. Land measuring 6 kanals and 1 marla situate in Mauza Gakkar, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala was sold by Fazal Ahmad, respondent No. 1, its owner, to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by a registered sale-deed, dated 29th of August, 1966 ostensibly for Rs. 2,500. The appellant instituted a suit to pre-empt the sale claiming his right of pre-emption on the ground of being a son of the vendor and alleging that the land had been sold for Rs. 2,000 but excessive sale price had been mentioned in the sale-deed.

3. The suit was contested by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 controverting the allegations of the appellant. They alleged that the land was urban immovable property and the appellant did not possess any right to pre-empt its sale. The A Civil Judge, Wazirabad holding that the land was an urban immovable property and the appellant had no right to pre-empt its sale dismissed his suit.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal which was heard by the Addl District Judge, Gujranwala who upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court concurring in its findings and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that in view of the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360 and Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others CA. 208 of 1980, a decree for possession by pre-emption on the ground asserted by the appellant could only be passed before 31st of July, 1986 and not thereafter. In view of these pronouncements, this regular second appeal having become infructuous is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

M.Y.H./M-773/L Appeal dismissed.