1988 SCMR 1565

MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus MST. SUGHRAN BIBI

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1988 SCMR 1565

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petitions Nos. 887 of 1982 and 185 of 1983

Date1988-05-21

Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan

Authored bySaad Saood Jan

ResultLeave granted

ORDER

1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ These are two petitions for special leave to appeal. They arise out of a pre‑emption suit. One relates to the city of Multan and the other to property situate in Ichhra, which now falls within the municipal limits of Lahore. The question which arises for consideration in these petitions relates to the quality of evidence which a pre‑emptor should produce to establish his superior right of pre‑emption in respect of urban immovable property. Section 7 of Pre‑emption Act states:‑

2. "Subject to the provisions of section 5 a right of pre‑emption shall exist in respect of urban immovable property in any town or Sub‑Division of a town when a custom of pre‑emption is proved to have been in existence in such town or Sub‑Division at the time of the commencement of this Act, and not otherwise."

3. The Pre‑emption Act came into force in 1913. In support of these petitions it is urged that in order to succeed a pre‑emptor must show that the right of pre‑emption existed in the locality where the property in dispute is situate in 1913. In C.P.S.L.A. No.185 of 1983, the pre‑emptor relied upon the notifications of the Provincial Government issued on 16‑6‑1941 and 24‑8‑1939. It is contended that these notifications did not by themselves create a right of pre‑emption but merely saved it; therefore, unless it was shown that the right of pre‑emption existed in Ichhra, the pre‑emptor could not rely upon these notifications in support of the right claimed by him. In C.P.S.L.A. No.887 of 1982, the pre‑emptor relied upon an earlier judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Multan but in that judgment no proper inquiry was made for determining whether the right of pre emption existed in the locality where the property was situated.

2. The question raised in these petitions requires examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000 in each case. The appeals may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary.

4. M. I./M‑486/S Leave granted